You are on page 1of 19

Please remember that these guidelines and questions are only basic starting

points and are not comprehensive. It is imperative for you to explore the
current situation, proposed solutions, problems and positions on your own.

The South China Sea disputes involve both island and maritime
claims among several sovereign states within the region,
namely the Nation of Brunei, the People's Republic of China, the
Republic of China (Taiwan), Malaysia, Indonesia, the Republic of
the Philippines, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. As a high
proportion of the world's trade passes through the South China
Sea, there are many non-claimant nations that want the South
China Sea to remain as international waters, with several
nations (e.g. the United States of America) conducting
"freedom of navigation" operations.
The disputes include the islands, reefs and banks of the South
China Sea, including the Spratly and Paracel islands, the
various boundaries, including those in the Gulf of Tonkin. There
is a further dispute in the waters near the Indonesian Natuna
Islands which by most definitions are not part of the South
China Sea. The interests of the nations include retaining or
acquiring the rights to fishing areas; the exploration and
potential exploitation of crude oil and natural gas under the
waters of various parts of the South China Sea, and the
strategic control of important shipping lanes.
specific disputes :
The nine-dash line area claimed by the Republic of China, later
People's Republic of China which covers most of the South
China sea and overlaps the exclusive economic zone claims of
Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and
Vietnam.
Maritime boundary along the Vietnamese coast between PRC,
Taiwan, and Vietnam.
Maritime boundary north of Borneo between China, Malaysia,
Philippines, and Taiwan.

Islands, reefs, banks and shoals in the South China Sea,


including the Paracel Islands, the Pratas Islands, Macclesfield
Bank, Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands between
China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and parts of the area also
contested by Malaysia and the Philippines.
Maritime boundary in the waters north of the Natuna Islands
between China, Indonesia and Taiwan
Maritime boundary off the coast of Palawan and Luzon between
China, the Philippines, and Taiwan.
Maritime boundary, land territory, and the islands of Sabah,
including Ambalat, between Indonesia, Malaysia, and the
Philippines.
Maritime boundary and islands in the Luzon Strait between the
China, the Philippines, and Taiwan.
Chinas highest rate of island development activity is taking
place on the Paracel and Spratly Island chains. Beijing has
reclaimed more than 2,900 acres (PDF) since December 2013,
more land than all other claimants combined in the past forty
years, according to a U.S. Defense Department report. Satellite
imagery has shown unprecedented activity from China on Subi
Reef and Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratlys, including the possible
construction of helipads, airstrips, piers, and radar and
surveillance structures. In addition to China, the Spratlys are
claimed by Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan.
Experts say that Chinas artificial island building and
infrastructure construction are increasing its potential power
projection capabilities in the region.
THE 9 DASH LINE
The Nine-Dash Lineat various times also referred to as the
"10-dash line" and the "11-dash line"refers to the
demarcation line used initially by the government of the
Republic of China (ROC / Taiwan) and subsequently also by the
government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), for their

claims of the major part of the South China Sea. The contested
area in the South China Sea includes the Paracel Islands, the
Spratly Islands, and various other areas including the Pratas
Islands, the Macclesfield Bank and the Scarborough Shoal. The
claim encompasses the area of Chinese land reclamation
known as the "great wall of sand"
at the end of World War II, the Republic of China (Taiwan)
reclaimed the entirety of the Paracels, Pratas and Spratly
Islands after accepting the Japanese surrender of the islands
based on the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. In November
1946, the Republic of China sent naval ships to take control of
these islands after the surrender of Japan. When the Peace
Treaty with Japan was being signed at the San Francisco
Conference, on 7 September 1951, both China and Vietnam
asserted their rights to the islands. Later the Philippine
government also laid claim to some islands of the archipelagos.
However, under the 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam
Proclamation, Republic of China's sovereignty over the
archipelagos and waters of South China Sea was not stated.
HISTORY OF THE 9 DASH LINE

It appeared on a Chinese map as an 11-dash line in 1947 as the


then Republic of Chinas navy took control of some islands in
the South China Sea that had been occupied by Japan during
the second world war. After the Peoples Republic of China was
founded in 1949 and Kuomintang forces fled to Taiwan, the
communist government declared itself the sole legitimate
representative of China and inherited all the nations maritime
claims in the region. But two dashes were removed in the
early 1950s to bypass the Gulf of Tonkin as a gesture to
communist comrades in North Vietnam.
Beijing intensified its hold in the northern part of the waters in
the mid-1970s when it expelled the South Vietnamese navy
from the Paracel Islands after a clash that saw dozens killed.

Seven out of about 200 reefs in the Spratly Islands came under
Chinese control in the 1980s and 1990s and Scarborough Shoal
in 2012. Taiwan still maintains its maritime claims in the region
and has kept a military garrison on Pratas Islands and the
largest natural feature in the Spratlys, Taiping.
Why is the line so important?
It serves as the basis of Chinas claim to historical rights in
the region, as neither Beijing nor Taipei ever held effective
control over the entire region encompassing more than 2
million sq km. According to former Philippine President Benigno
Aquino III, "China's nine-dash line territorial claim over the
entire South China Sea is against international laws, particularly
the United Nations Convention of the Laws of the Sea
(UNCLOS)" as also ruled by the Permanent Court of Arbitration
in the Hague. The tribunal judged that there was no evidence
that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the
waters or resources within the Nine-Dash Line.

CLAIMS AND POSITIONS OF VARIOUS NATIONS


1) Brunei
Brunei claims the part of the South China Seas nearest to it as
part of its continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
In 1984, Brunei declared an EEZ encompassing the abovewater islets it claims in Louisa Reef. Brunei does not practice
military control in the area.
Brunei's claims to the reef are based on the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Brunei states that
the southern part of the Spratly Islands chain is actually a part
of its continental shelf, and therefore a part of its territory and
resources.

2) Taiwan
Taiwan shares many of its South China Sea claims with the PRC
in fact, the claims officially originated not with the PRC but
with the Republic of China (ROC) government in the immediate
post-war era. When the ROC moved its capital to Taipei at the
end of the Chinese Civil War, it brought its territorial claims.
Taiwan thus found itself in the uncomfortable position of having
its claims challenged through the Philippines case against
China without having an opportunity to participate in the
case. Taiwan, which is not a member of the United Nations, is
likewise not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS); there was no legal avenue for Taipei to insert itself
into the case. Even Taiwans request to send an observer
delegation to the hearings was denied. Most importantly for
Taiwan, the tribunal took up the question of the status of Itu
Aba, known as Taiping Island in Taiwan. The island, the largest
naturally occurring feature in the Spratlys group, is occupied by
Taiwan and houses a military garrison, a hospital, and a farm.
Taipei strenuously argued its case that Itu Aba is capable of
sustaining human habitation, with its freshwater wells and
ability to grow produce, and is thus an island under UNCLOS.
That, in turn, would give Taipei a claim to a 200 nautical mile
EEZ extending from Itu Aba and encompassing a wide swath of
the South China Sea. The tribunal, however, ultimately
disagreed. It found that Itu Aba along with the rest of the
Spratlys is not an island, as it cannot sustain a human
community without external aid. Taiwans response was
immediate.

3) Malaysia
Malaysia claims a small number of islands in the Spratly Islands
and its claims cover only the islands included in its Exclusive
economic zone of 200 miles as defined by the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Malaysia has militarily
occupied three islands that it considers to be within its
continental shelf. Swallow Reef (Layang Layang / Terumbu

Layang / Pulau Layang Layang) was under control on 1983 and


has been turned into an island through a land reclamation. The
Malaysian military also occupies Ardasier Reef (Terumbu Ubi),
and Mariveles Reef (Terumbu Mantanani).
Malaysia's claims are based upon the continental shelf
principle, and have clearly defined coordinates within the limits
of its EEZ defined in 1979. This argument requires that the
islands were res nullius and this requirement is said to be
satisfied as when Japan renounced their sovereignty over the
islands according to the San Francisco Treaty, there was a
relinquishment of the right to the islands without any special
beneficiary. Therefore, the islands became res nullius and
available for annexation.
4) Peoples Republic of China
The People's Republic of China (PRC) claims all of the Spratly
Islands as part of China based on history and not UNCLOS.
China claims to have discovered the islands in the Han dynasty
in 2 BC. The islands were claimed to have been marked on
maps compiled during the time of Eastern Han dynasty and
Eastern Wu (one of the Three Kingdoms). Since the Yuan
dynasty in the 12th century, several islands that may be the
Spratlys have been labelled as Chinese territory, followed by
the Ming dynasty and the Qing dynasty from the 13th to 19th
Century. The Spratlys and the Paracels were conquered by
Japan in 1939. Japan administered the Spratlys via Taiwan's
jurisdiction and the Paracels via Hainan's jurisdiction. The
Paracels and Spratlys were handed over to Republic of China
control from Japan after the 1945 surrender of Japan, since the
Allied powers assigned the Republic of China to receive
Japanese surrenders in that area.
5) Philippines
The Philippines' claims are based on sovereignty over the
Spratlys on the issues of Res nullius and geography. The
Philippines contend their claim was Res nullius as there was no

effective sovereignty over the islands until the 1930s when


France and then Japan acquired the islands. When Japan
renounced their sovereignty over the islands according to the
San Francisco Treaty, there was a relinquishment of the right to
the islands without any special beneficiary. Therefore, the
islands became Res nullius and available for annexation, per
the claim. On 11 June 1978, President Ferdinand Marcos of the
Philippines issued Presidential Decree No. 1596, declaring the
Spratly Islands (referred to therein as the Kalayaan Island
Group) as Philippine territory.
Territorial map claimed by the Philippines, showing internal
waters, territorial sea, international treaty limits and exclusive
economic zone.
The Philippine claim to Kalayaan on a geographical basis can be
summarised using the assertion that Kalayaan is distinct from
other island groups in the South China Sea, because of the size
of the biggest island in the Kalayaan group.[citation needed] A
second argument used by the Philippines regarding their
geographical claim over the Spratlys is that all the islands
claimed by the Philippines lie within its 200-mile Exclusive
Economic Zone according to the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea. This argument assumes that
the islands were res nullius. The Philippines also contend, under
maritime law that the People's Republic of China can not extend
its baseline claims to the Spratlys because the PRC is not an
archipelagic state.
6) Vietnam
On the 25 July 1994, Vietnam ratified the UNCLOS. Upon
ratification, it declared:
The National Assembly reiterates Viet Nam's sovereignty over
the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagos and its position to
settle those disputes relating to territorial claims as well as
other disputes in the Eastern Sea through peaceful negotiations
in the spirit of equality, mutual respect and understanding, and

with due respect of international law, particularly the 1982


United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and of the
sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the coastal States over their
respective continental shelves and exclusive economic zones.
Vietnam's view is that the Chinese records do not constitute the
declaration and exercise of sovereignty and that China did not
declare sovereignty over the Spratlys until after World War II.
On the other hand, Vietnam claims the Spratlys based on
international law on declaring and exercising sovereignty.
Vietnam People's Navy Naval Infantry marching on Spratly
Island
Vietnamese claims that it has occupied the Spratly and the
Paracel islands at least since the 17th century, when they were
not under the sovereignty of any state, and that they exercised
sovereignty over the two archipelagos continuously and
peacefully until they were invaded by Chinese armed forces.
The Cairo Declaration, drafted by the Allies and China towards
the end of World War II, listed the territories that the Allies
intended to strip from Japan and return to China. Despite China
being among the authors of the declaration, this list did not
include the Spratlys. Vietnam's response to China's claim that
the Cairo Declaration somehow recognised the latter's
sovereignty over the Spratlys is that this claim has no basis in
fact. On 7 July 1951, Tran Van Huu, head of (State of Vietnam)
delegation to the conference declared that the Paracels and
Spratlys were part of Vietnamese territory. This declaration met
with no challenge from the 51 representatives at the
conference.
INVOLVEMENT OF JAPAN AND KOREA
There are disputes between the China, Japan, and South Korea
over the extent of their respective exclusive economic zones in
the East China Sea. In 1995, the People's Republic of China
(PRC) discovered an undersea natural gas field in the East

China Sea, namely the Chunxiao gas field, which lies within the
Chinese EEZ while Japan believes it is connected to other
possible reserves beyond the median line. Japan has objected
to PRC development of natural gas resources in the East China
Sea near an area where the two countries Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) claims overlap. Under the United Nations' Law of
the Sea, the PRC claims the disputed ocean territory as its own
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) due to its being part of PRC's
natural extension of its continental shelf, while Japan claims the
disputed ocean territory as its own EEZ because it is within 200
nautical miles (370 km) from Japan's coast, and proposed a
median line as the boundary between the EEZ of China and
Japan. About 40,000 square kilometres of EEZ are in dispute.
China and Japan both claim 200 nautical miles EEZ rights, but
the East China Sea width is only 360 nautical miles. China
claims an EEZ extending to the eastern end of the Chinese
continental shelf (based on UNCLOS III) which goes deep into
the Japanese's claimed EEZ.
The dispute between PRC and South Korea concerns Socotra
Rock, a submerged reef on which South Korea has constructed
a scientific research station. While neither country claims the
rock as territory, the PRC has objected to Korean activities there
as a breach of its EEZ rights. South Korea was under pressure
from the United States to clarify its position on the South China
Sea. Then, in November, Defense Minister Han Min-goo
delivered remarks at the ASEAN Defense Ministers' MeetingPlus (ADMM-Plus) stating that freedom of navigation and
overflight must be guaranteed and that the disputes should be
resolved in a peaceful manner. Later that month, President Park
Geun-hye went a step further at the East Asia Summit in
Malaysia when she stated that concerned parties should
observe the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South
China Sea and that disputes should be resolved per
international law. She went on to assert that concerned
countries must respect the promise of demilitarizing the South
China Sea, which was widely interpreted as supporting the U.S.
position on the disputes. At the 2015 East Asia Summit, Park

argued that "Korea has consistently stressed that the dispute


must be peacefully resolved per international agreements and
code of conduct" and "China must guarantee the right of free
navigation and flight."
THE USAS PIVOT TO THE EAST
A recent example is Defense Secretary Ashton Carters April
trip to secure a military alliance with India, exploiting the
strained Beijing-New Delhi relations over their mutual border
dispute. Moreover, a visit last month to Washington by Indias
Prime Minister Narendra Modi cemented the US-Indian military
alliance in preparation for war against China. To further attempt
to intimidate China, Carter boasted that it would take decades
for anyone to build the kind of military capability the United
States possesses. Carter then named all the US allies in the
Pacific it has in its pocket ready to go to war against China,
starting with Japan and Australia, followed by Philippines, India,
Vietnam, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia
and Laos. Chinas self-isolation Carter promised, refers to the
US plan to use its full spectrum dominance on the high seas by
controlling the crucial narrow maritime passageway linking the
Indian Ocean where Middle Eastern oil and near half of the
worlds total cargo, two thirds of all natural gas shipments, a
third of all oil and 10% of commercial fish catch, worth a total
of $5.3 trillion annually flow through the South China Sea into
the Asian Pacific. By interdicting and cutting off Chinas
supplied shipments of vital oil and critical raw materials, thus
choking Chinas lifeblood to either sustain itself much less win a
global war.

RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL RESOLUTIONS


UNCLOS ( United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea )

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea


(UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law
of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted
from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS III), which took place between 1973 and 1982. The
Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and
responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the
world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the
environment, and the management of marine natural resources
Internal waters
Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the
baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and
use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage
within internal waters.
Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the
baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and
use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent
passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits
allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that
naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be
illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the
convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and
continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good
order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting,
weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and
submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to
navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also
temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their
territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its
security.
Archipelagic waters
The convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part
IV, which also defines how the state can draw its territorial
borders. A baseline is drawn between the outermost points of
the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently
close to one another. All waters inside this baseline are

designated Archipelagic Waters. The state has sovereignty over


these waters (like internal waters), but subject to existing rights
including traditional fishing rights of immediately adjacent
states.[8] Foreign vessels have right of innocent passage
through archipelagic waters (like territorial waters).
Contiguous zone
Beyond the 12-nautical-mile (22 km) limit, there is a further 12
nautical miles (22 km) from the territorial sea baseline limit, the
contiguous zone, in which a state can continue to enforce laws
in four specific areas: customs, taxation, immigration and
pollution, if the infringement started within the state's territory
or territorial waters, or if this infringement is about to occur
within the state's territory or territorial waters. This makes the
contiguous zone a hot pursuit area.
Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)
These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200
nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the baseline.
Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights
over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include
the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs
were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over
fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The
success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947
was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was
technically feasible to operate in waters 4,000 metres deep.
Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight,
subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states
may also lay submarine pipes and cables.
PCA RULING ON SOUTH CHINA SEA
Philippines v. China (PCA case number 201319), also known as
the South China Sea Arbitration, was an arbitration case
brought by the Republic of the Philippines against the Peoples
Republic of China under Annex VII to the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) concerning certain

issues in the South China Sea including the legality of China's


"nine-dotted line" claim.
The Philippines contended that the "nine-dotted line" claim by
China is invalid because it violates the UNCLOS agreements
about exclusive economic zones and territorial seas. It says that
because most of the features in the South China Sea, such as
most of the Spratly Islands, cannot sustain life, they cannot be
given their own continental shelf as defined in the convention.
Chinese stance
China refused to participate in the arbitration, stating that
several treaties with the Philippines stipulate that bilateral
negotiations be used to resolve border disputes. It also accuses
the Philippines of violating the voluntary Declaration on the
Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, made in 2002
between ASEAN and China, which also stipulated bilateral
negotiations as the means of resolving border and other
disputes. China issued a position paper in December 2014
arguing the dispute was not subject to arbitration because it
was ultimately a matter of sovereignty, not exploitation rights.
Its refusal will not prevent the PCA tribunal from proceeding
with the case. After the award ruling, the PRC issued a
statement rejecting it as 'null' and having decided not to abide
by the arbitral tribunal's decision, said it will "ignore the ruling".
On July 12, 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration published
an arbitration award by the tribunal which it states is final and
binding as set out in the Convention. Conclusions expressed in
the award included the following:
Regarding the "Nine-Dash Line" and China's claim in the
maritime areas of the South China Sea

The [UNCLOS] Convention defines the scope of maritime


entitlements in the South China Sea, which may not extend
beyond the limits imposed therein.


Chinas claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights
or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South
China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the nine-dash
line are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to
the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive
limits of Chinas maritime entitlements under the Convention.
The Convention superseded any historic rights or other
sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed
therein

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS SURROUNDING THE SOUTH


CHINA SEA DISPUTE
China and Vietnam have promised to settle their differences
regarding territorial claims in the South China Sea and to
safeguard peace in the region, the two countries said in a joint
communique.
Then statement came after Vietnamese Communist Party chief
Nguyen Phu Trong held talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in
Beijing on the 14th of January. The communique, released by
Chinas Xinhua news agency after the talks, described the
discussions of bilateral relations by the top officials as candid.
The joint communique also said that the parties agreed to
continue to "fully and effectively" implement the Declaration on
the Conduct (DOC) of Parties in the South China Sea and strive
for the early conclusion of a Code of Conduct (COC) on the
basis of the declaration.
During the talks, Xi also urged both China and Vietnam to
increase communication and consolidate mutual trust in order
to lay a solid political foundation for the settlement of disputes
in the South China Sea and work together on maritime
exploration.
He stressed that China is willing to work with Vietnam to
advance their comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership
in a sustained, healthy and steady way, making more

contributions to peace, cooperation, development and


prosperity in Asia and the world as a whole.
The outgoing Obama administration has called for a peaceful
and diplomatic solution to the territorial disputes in the South
China Sea region, amidst warnings of war from China in the
event that the US tries to restrict its access to the concerned
islands.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has warmed up to


Beijing away from the country's traditional reliance on the
U.S., says he will bring up an international arbitration ruling
that invalidated most of China's claims in the South China Sea
if Beijing starts extracting oil or gas from the disputed waters.
At the same time, the Philippines is studying the possibility of
joint exploration of resources with China, according to the
Philippine ambassador to Beijing, Jose Santiago "Chito" Santa
Romana.

QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER ( QARMA )


a. What are the immediate measures that can be taken by
the United Nations Security Council member nations in
order to effectively diffuse the tension in the ongoing
South China Sea conflict?
b. What are the different positions and contributions of the
nations involved in the dispute?
c. How can the powerful nations leverage their positions and
influence to prevent further escalation of the issue?
d. What measures can be taken by the UNSC member
nations in order to establish a long-term, sustainable plan
to curb tension in the South China Sea?

REFERENCES
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349
http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2015/06/09/everything-you-need-to-know-aboutthe-south-china-sea-conflict-in-under-five-minutes/
http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-pacific/chinas-maritimedisputes/p31345#!/?cid=otr-marketing_usechina_sea_InfoGuide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands_dispute#Clai
ms_and_their_basis
http://nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=863
http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/taiwan-south-china-searuling-completely-unacceptable/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/countdown-to-war-in-thesouth-china-sea/5537755
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/03/the-legacy-of-obamaspivot-to-asia/
https://www.rt.com/news/373709-china-vietnam-seadisputes/
http://www.businessstandard.com/article/international/obama-administrationcalls-for-peaceful-solution-to-south-china-sea-dispute117011400082_1.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/recent-developmentssurrounding-south-china-sea-025035664.html

You might also like