The South China Sea, a vast expanse of water dotted with islands, reefs, and shoals, has long been a theatre of competing claims and historical grievances. Its strategic location, straddling vital shipping lanes and believed to hold significant hydrocarbon reserves, has ensured its perennial prominence on the geopolitical stage. The current tensions are not a sudden eruption but rather the culmination of centuries of overlapping assertions and, more recently, an intensified scramble for control [1].
China, for instance, anchors its expansive claims on historical rights, citing maps from 1947 that delineate a “nine-dash line” encompassing the majority of the sea. Beijing asserts that its historical dominion over the Paracel and Spratly island chains dates back centuries, viewing them as integral parts of the Chinese nation. This historical narrative, however, is not universally accepted. Vietnam, a prominent claimant, vehemently disputes China’s historical account, contending that China never claimed sovereignty over these islands before the 1940s. Hanoi points to its own historical documents, asserting active rule over both the Paracels and Spratlys since the 17th century [2].
The Philippines, another key player in these South China Sea disputes, bases its claims primarily on geographical proximity to the Spratly Islands. The Scarborough Shoal, a particularly contentious feature, lies a mere 100 miles from the Philippines, in stark contrast to its 500-mile distance from China. Malaysia and Brunei also lay claim to territories within their respective exclusive economic zones, as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While Brunei does not claim any of the disputed islands, Malaysia asserts sovereignty over a small number of islands within the Spratlys [2].
Taiwan, often an overlooked claimant, mirrors China’s historical assertions, adding another layer of complexity to an already intricate tapestry of claims. The confluence of these historical narratives, geographical realities, and resource aspirations creates a volatile mix, ensuring that the South China Sea disputes remain a persistent source of regional friction.
The geopolitical chessboard external powers and regional dynamics
The South China Sea is not merely a regional squabble; it is a microcosm of broader geopolitical tensions, particularly the burgeoning rivalry between major global powers. The United States, while asserting no territorial claims itself, maintains a vested interest in ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight, and upholding international law. Its presence, often manifested through freedom of navigation operations, is often perceived by Beijing as an unwelcome intrusion, further exacerbating tensions [2].
China, in turn, has been rather industrious in asserting its claims, engaging in extensive land reclamation and the construction of military installations on disputed features. These artificial islands, complete with airstrips and radar systems, serve as tangible manifestations of Beijing’s resolve, much to the chagrin of its neighbours [1]. The sheer audacity of transforming submerged reefs into fortified outposts certainly merits a raised eyebrow, if not a full-blown diplomatic incident. This rather direct approach, however, has done little to assuage regional anxieties, instead prompting other claimants to seek external assurances.
The Philippines, for instance, has actively sought to bolster its strategic partnerships, particularly with the United States, Japan, and Australia. This collective deterrence strategy aims to counter Chinese assertiveness, though it occasionally appears as a rather desperate attempt to find a larger stick in a playground dispute [3]. Vietnam, while equally concerned by China’s actions, has adopted a more circumspect approach, preferring to manage its relationship with Beijing privately. This divergence in regional responses highlights the inherent complexities of forging a united front against a formidable regional power. One might even suggest that Southeast Asian nations, much like a bewildered cricket team, are struggling to agree on a coherent strategy whilst facing a rather aggressive fast bowler.
The European Union and the United Kingdom, though geographically distant, also maintain an interest in the South China Sea, primarily due to the significant volume of global trade that transits through its waters. Their involvement, often expressed through diplomatic statements and calls for adherence to international law, serves as a gentle reminder that the world is indeed watching, even if from a comfortable distance [2]. The ongoing South China Sea disputes, therefore, are not merely a regional affair but a global concern, reflecting broader contests over international norms and the future of maritime governance.
The Law of the Sea—A toothless tiger?
One might be forgiven for thinking that international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), would provide a clear framework for resolving these maritime disagreements. Indeed, the Philippines sought recourse through this very mechanism, initiating arbitration proceedings against China in 2013. The resulting 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague was a resounding victory for Manila, declaring China’s nine-dash line to have no legal basis and affirming that Beijing had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights [2].
This, one might have thought, would be the end of the matter. A clear legal precedent had been set, a victory for the underdog, a triumph for the rules-based international order. Alas, such optimism proved to be rather misplaced. China, in a move that surprised precisely no one, dismissed the ruling as “ill-founded” and declared its intention to ignore it entirely. This rather blatant disregard for international law has left many wondering whether UNCLOS, in the context of the South China Sea disputes, is less a binding legal instrument and more a set of polite suggestions to be adhered to at one’s convenience.
This is not to say that the ruling has been entirely without consequence. It has certainly provided a legal and moral high ground for the Philippines and other claimants, and it has been frequently cited by external powers, such as the United States, in their calls for a rules-based approach. However, in the absence of any enforcement mechanism, the ruling remains largely symbolic, a legal victory that has yet to translate into tangible changes on the water. The South China Sea disputes continue unabated, a testament to the enduring primacy of hard power in international relations, much to the chagrin of international lawyers and armchair admirals alike.
Recent incidents—A perpetual state of near-misses
The South China Sea, it appears, is rarely afforded a moment of tranquility. Recent events continue to underscore the precarious nature of the situation, with frequent encounters between claimant states and their respective coast guards. The Sabina Shoal incident in August 2024, for instance, saw a Philippine vessel and a Chinese coast guard ship engaging in a rather undignified dance of accusations and counteraccusations, each blaming the other for intentional ramming [4]. One might observe that such incidents, while seemingly minor, are akin to two irritable gentlemen repeatedly bumping into each other in a crowded pub, each convinced of the other’s deliberate provocation. The potential for a minor jostle to escalate into a full-blown brawl remains ever-present.
These encounters, often involving water cannons and dangerous manoeuvres, highlight the persistent lack of effective communication channels between the parties, particularly between Manila and Beijing. Despite attempts to establish hotlines, calls often go unanswered when they are most needed, leaving ample room for miscalculation and escalation [5]. It is a peculiar state of affairs when nations, ostensibly seeking peace, appear to prefer a game of charades to direct conversation. The repeated warnings from the United States, affirming its treaty obligations to defend the Philippines in the event of an armed attack, add another layer of complexity, transforming what might otherwise be a regional spat into a potential international conflagration. The stakes, it seems, are perpetually being raised, with each incident serving as a stark reminder of the volatile cocktail of competing interests and unresolved claims that defines the South China Sea disputes.
The prize resources and trade routes
Beyond the flags and historical claims, the South China Sea holds immense economic and strategic value, making it a prize worth contending for. It is, first and foremost, a critical artery for global trade. A staggering volume of maritime commerce, estimated at trillions of dollars annually, transits through these waters, connecting East Asia with Europe, Africa, and the Middle East [2]. Any significant disruption to this flow would send economic tremors across the globe, affecting supply chains and consumer prices with a rather unpleasant efficiency. One might even suggest that the world’s economic health is, to a considerable extent, held hostage by the tranquility, or lack thereof, in this particular body of water.
Furthermore, the seabed beneath the South China Sea is believed to harbour substantial reserves of untapped oil and natural gas. While precise figures remain elusive, estimates suggest billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, a tantalizing prospect for energy-hungry nations [1]. The allure of these hydrocarbon riches undoubtedly fuels the territorial ambitions of the claimant states, transforming what might otherwise be barren rocks into highly coveted assets. The potential for vast wealth, it seems, can often overshadow the more mundane considerations of international law and peaceful coexistence.
In addition to energy resources, the South China Sea is also home to some of the world’s richest fishing grounds, providing livelihoods for millions across the region. More than half of the world’s fishing vessels operate in these waters, making it a vital source of food security for many coastal communities [2]. The depletion of fish stocks due to overfishing and environmental degradation, coupled with the constant threat of maritime incidents, adds another layer of complexity to the already strained relations. One can hardly expect a fisherman, whose livelihood depends on these waters, to be particularly phlegmatic when confronted by a foreign coast guard vessel. The daily realities of resource competition, therefore, serve as a constant reminder of the tangible stakes involved in these protracted South China Sea disputes.
A constant landscape of instability
The South China Sea, therefore, remains a crucible of competing interests, historical narratives, and geopolitical aspirations. The various claimants, each with their own compelling arguments and perceived entitlements, find themselves locked in a perpetual embrace of unresolved tension. The involvement of external powers, while ostensibly aimed at upholding international law and ensuring regional stability, often serves to further complicate an already intricate web of relationships. The prospect of a swift and amicable resolution appears, at present, to be as elusive as a coherent foreign policy from a particularly indecisive government. The South China Sea disputes, it seems, are destined to remain a persistent thorn in the side of regional harmony, a testament to the enduring complexities of international relations where historical claims, economic imperatives, and strategic ambitions collide with a rather predictable regularity.
One might be tempted to draw parallels with the interminable legal wrangling of a Dickensian novel, were it not for the very real prospect of military confrontation. The constant naval patrols, the close encounters between warships, and the occasional fiery rhetoric from all sides create a rather combustible atmosphere. It is a testament to the professionalism of the sailors involved that a major incident has thus far been avoided, though one suspects that luck, as much as judgment, has played a significant role. The South China Sea disputes, it seems, are a perpetual exercise in brinkmanship, a high-stakes game of chicken played out on the high seas.
Domestic politics: Fueling the fire
Furthermore, the internal dynamics of the claimant states add another layer of complexity. Domestic political considerations often play a significant role in shaping foreign policy, and the South China Sea disputes are no exception. Nationalistic sentiment can be a potent political tool, and governments may be tempted to adopt a more assertive stance in the disputed waters to shore up domestic support.
This can create a dangerous feedback loop, where domestic pressures lead to more aggressive actions, which in turn provoke a response from other claimants, further escalating tensions. It is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, with the unfortunate consequence that the dog in question is a rather heavily armed one.
ASEAN and the elusive resolution
It is also worth noting the role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in this ongoing saga. ASEAN, a regional grouping of ten countries, has long sought to play a mediating role in the South China Sea disputes [6]. It has championed a code of conduct, a set of rules to govern the behaviour of the claimant states, and has repeatedly called for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
However, ASEAN’s consensus-based decision-making process has often been a hindrance, with the differing interests of its member states making it difficult to forge a united front. China, for its part, has been adept at exploiting these divisions, preferring to deal with the claimant states on a bilateral basis, where it enjoys a significant power advantage. ASEAN, it seems, is rather like a well-meaning but ultimately ineffectual schoolmaster, unable to impose discipline on a playground of unruly children.
The South China Sea disputes, therefore, are a multifaceted problem with no easy solutions. The complex interplay of historical claims, economic interests, geopolitical rivalries, and domestic politics creates a formidable challenge for diplomats and policymakers. The path to a peaceful resolution, if one exists at all, is likely to be a long and arduous one, requiring a delicate balance of firmness and flexibility, as well as a healthy dose of pragmatism.
In the meantime, the world can only watch and hope that the various actors in this maritime drama choose to step back from the brink, lest they find themselves embroiled in a conflict that nobody wants, but nobody seems able to prevent. The South China Sea, it seems, will remain a persistent puzzle, a geopolitical conundrum that will continue to vex international relations for the foreseeable future. The ongoing South China Sea disputes are a stark reminder of the enduring complexities of our multipolar world, where the pursuit of national interest can often lead to a collective predicament.
Sources
[1] Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). Timeline: China’s Maritime Disputes. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/timeline/chinas-maritime-disputes
[2] BBC News. (2023, July 7). What is the South China Sea dispute?. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349
[3] East Asia Forum. (2024, March 22). Southeast Asia stymied in South China Sea dispute. Retrieved from https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/03/22/southeast-asiastymied-in-south-china-sea-dispute/
[4] Asia Media Centre. (2024, September 3). Sabina Shoal: New China-Philippines Flashpoint in South China Sea. Retrieved from https://www.asiamediacentre.org.nz/sabina-shoal-new-china-philippines-flashpointin-south-china-sea
[5] United States Institute of Peace. (2023, September 7). South China Sea: Crisis Communication Is Crucial to De-escalate Geopolitical Tensions. Retrieved from https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/09/south-china-sea-crisis-communicationcrucial-de-escalate-geopolitical-tensions
[6] PostFactum. (2024, June 18). South China Sea dispute: Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and ASEAN face off over oil and gas, shoals, islands and China’s nine-dash line. Retrieved from https://www.postfactum.co.uk/south-china-sea-dispute-claim-vietnam-philippines-malaysia-brunei-asean-oil-gas-shoal-islands-9-dash-line-eez-economic-zone-international-law-vietnam-singapore-trade