The South China Sea (SCS) is home to abundant marine life and has bountiful reserves of oil and gas beneath its surface. Unsurprisingly, these rich waters have been strongly disputed throughout history. In the present, China has invoked its historic claim over the SCS, claiming almost its entirety as their own with the infamous nine-dash-line. As such, they assume full jurisdiction on the SCS, blatantly ignoring international maritime standards and demarcation. 

China asserts its claim to the SCS according to the nine-dash-line (shown in red above) (Image from Voice Of America)

China has reclaimed islands and expanded across the SCS at an unparalleled magnitude relative to other claimants. They also occasionally enforce fishing restrictions for both Chinese and foreign vessels without their prior permission. In early May, they announced an annual fishing ban for both Chinese and foreign vessels to preserve fishing stocks in the sea, asserting their sovereignty to implement such a ban. In some instances, foreign vessels were reportedly being rammed and sunk by Chinese coast guard vessels, further worsening tensions in the highly-contested waters. 

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) mandates that a country’s sovereignty extends up to 12 nautical miles from its baseline. Within this boundary, they hold legitimate authority and control. Beyond that, they only hold sovereign rights, meaning they can explore and exploit resources in that region but not interfere or restrict other countries from doing so. Under these standards, China has — and continues to — violate the sovereign rights of the other countries in the region. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has already invalidated the nine-dash-line through a case initiated by the Philippines in 2016. The tribunal concluded that China’s assertion stands on no legal basis. China did not participate in the arbitration and eventually ignored the final ruling. 

Despite their weak legal foothold on sovereignty claims, China’s national interests in expanding across the SCS are understandable. They have suffered painful defeats in the past during what they refer to as the “century of humiliation”. Western powers and other countries at that time had a stronghold on the SCS, making China vulnerable to their attacks as they crossed through routes in this sea. Since their economy is largely dependent on maritime trade, the SCS conflict is a matter of security for them.

Legal contentions may be of irrefutable importance, but reconciling the interests of all involved countries is equally critical. In a similar conflict in Europe, the Baltic sea was disputed by Poland and Denmark for over 40 years. But the two claimants have reached an agreement and signed a treaty in 2018 that formally delimits maritime boundaries on the sea. Prime ministers from both countries expressed mutual relief to have finally resolved the longstanding dispute through fair negotiations. 

In the context of the SCS, the Philippines has recently employed such an approach;  in 2019, the government held its first meeting for a joint exploration deal with China to propose a 60:40 distribution of resources in their disputed territories (the Philippines receiving the 60%). Indeed, most of the islands being disputed are beyond the sovereignty of both countries, so such negotiations are reasonable. However, it is important for the Philippines to maintain the upper hand in the economic aspect of the deal by having a higher proportion of shares, since their main interest is to reap the bounties of the sea.

This may not be easy, given China’s enduring affirmation of the nine-dash-line. China has expressed willingness to participate in such negotiations, but only if the Philippines acknowledges their sovereignty over the sea. This practically downplays the victory in the arbitration case in 2016. For as long as they insist on their vested power to exercise full jurisdiction over the sea, unlawful policies like the fishing ban may still be implemented, and fishermen from other countries may still face risks when they venture into the sea.

Such deals thus require continuous understanding and commitment. We’ve seen several tensions between countries resurface in history due to dissatisfaction with previous negotiations that were intended to resolve their conflicts. In an ever-changing world, all interests are impermanent and may have repercussions on existing diplomatic relations. It is essential to craft agreements carefully and encourage flexibility to avoid potential compromises on interests.

Copyright © The KAIST Herald Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution prohibited