Why are the Disputes in the South China Sea So Intractable? A Historical Approach

Abstract

There are at least three ways of writing the history of a sovereignty dis pute. The first applies a national perspective, goes as far back in history as possible in order to find evidence that the territory in question is an inviolable part of the national patrimony, and demonstrates how sover eignty has been continuously upheld through prescription, occupation and utilization. The second composes a non-partisan legal treatise, presents the chronology of conflicting claims to sovereignty, and evaluates their relative merits on the basis of international law (cf. Austin, 1998; Valencia, Dyke, and Ludwig, 1997). The third makes the dispute a part of general inter national history, analysing events and trends on the basis of changes in the international system and in the balance of power (cf. Renouvin, 1946; Joyaux, 1985, 1988; Yahuda, 1996). In this article, we shall follow the third approach and let changes in international power relations underpin the structure of the analysis. Each section starts with a characterization of the international system and power relations within the period under scrutiny, and then examines the territorial disputes within this context. The historical record has a major role to play in any resolution of a sovereignty dispute. It is normal practice to select some critical dates when treaties, decrees or other actions provided all interested parties a chance to present and sustain their claims. For the dispute over sovereignty to islands in the South China Sea (the Spratlys and the Paracels), the can didates that may serve as critical dates are 1877, 1909, 1933, 1946-1947, 1951-1952, 1956, 1971, 1974, 1982-1983 and 1988. No attempt will be made in the analysis below to point out the dates that ought to underpin the resolution of the sovereignty disputes, but this paper will describe what happened in those years.