21/01/2013
A. Legal Perspective 1. Customary International Law: a. What are these: · Freedoms of the sea. · Cooperation between states. · Peaceful settlement of disputes.
2. International Conventions or Treaties:
a. UNCLOS 1982
b. Bilateral and regional agreements/arrangements
c. UN Charter
d. Other relevant international conventions.
Freedoms of the sea, resources use, and the use of the space, such as by shipping, have now been highly regulated particularly by UNCLOS 1982 and by other international conventions such as IMO, ICAO, UNESCO, etc.
B. What are the “disputes” in the South China Sea?
1. Claims to the sea? As China seems to imply? Needs for clarifications, limits, coordinates of the area claimed. Slowly, it appears that what China claims sovereignty is over the features in the 9 dotted lines, not sovereignty over the sea itself. The “U-Shape” lines appear to be “allocation” line, not territorial line.
2. Claims to the “features”(islands, rocks, reefs, low tide elevations, banks, atoll, etc.)?
3. The rights to maritime zones of the “features” (internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial seas, contiguous zones, Exclusive Economic Zones, Continental Shelf/margin).
4. The nature of the claims: Territorial sovereignty, sovereign rights, jurisdictions, interests.
5. “Historic claims”, what are these and how long should it become historic?
6. Is Chinese Taipei/Taiwan a “party” to the “dispute”? Can an “entity” be a party to the “disputes”? Can Chinese Taipei/Taiwan be regarded as a “South China Sea entity”?
7. Is Myanmar, and for that matter Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, even Singapore, be regarded as parties in the South China Sea disputes because these states signed the DoC with China and they are not exactly in the South China Sea or involved in the disputed area.
8. Is ASEAN a party to the South China Sea disputes?
9. A number of UNCLOS 1982 provisions would be useful and instrumental in those issues, such as the provisions on islands and rocks (Article 121), on various models of baselines and the nature of the waters enclosed by the different baselines, on management of resources, either living or non-living, and others.
(countinuing)
Read full text of this paper here
The South China Sea (SCS) has long been of interest to scholars of international law and international relations.[1] But attention has been paid almost exclusively to the simmering territorial disputes in the SCS. While this is justified by the concern that such disputes pose a threat to regional peace...
All too often, the public discourse on the conflicting claims to territorial sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction in the South China Sea renders an already complex subject even more complicated. The mass media and some academic commentators, who should know better, help this trend along by perpetuating,...
Ownership of territory is significant because sovereignty over land defines what constitutes a state.[1] Additionally, as Machiavelli suggested, territorial acquisition is one of the goals of most states.[2] The territorial disputes in South China Sea have long plagued the relationship of nations in...
Relations among the United States, ASEAN and China have undergone significant changes in the past decade. Some of the salient factors behind these changes are: 1) increasing assertiveness by China in pressing its claims in the South China Sea; 2) resurgence of ASEAN’s concerns about Chinese intentions...
The South China sea region has emerged as one of the areas of intense global focus with claims and counter claims of contending countries flooding the region in an atmosphere of mistrust and animosity. The debate and actions by maritime para military forces, fishing fleets , agencies behaving like maritime...
As China emerges as a leading, modern military power in the Asia-Pacific region, the countries of Southeast Asia are increasingly hedging against possible Chinese military adventurism by rearming themselves. At the same time, China is hardly the only reason for the ASEAN states’ current military modernization...