Claimant Countries Research Articles

Yugoslavia and the Restitution of Monetary Gold After the Second World War

During the Second World War, the Axis states looted a great deal of gold in various forms, both from individuals and countries. Following that war, the western allies established the Tripartite Gold Commission (TGC) to organize the restitution of monetary gold that had belonged to central banks in occupied Europe. One of the claimant countries was Yugoslavia. Drawing upon hitherto unused TGC records, the article examines the looting of Yugoslav monetary gold and its restitution via the TGC, which is a little-known episode in postwar history. Of the four Yugoslav claims submitted to the TGC in 1947, the majority were recognized as valid, yet the final adjudication was not published until 1958. The reasons for this protracted process of restitution and for the rejection of some of the Yugoslav claims are set out and note is made of the issue's recrudescence in the 1990s, when the TGC sought to distribute the final Yugoslav share. The break-up of Yugoslavia made this concluding allocation of gold a demanding task, and it did not end until 2004. By comparing it with other claimant countries, the article demonstrates that in some ways Yugoslavia was in a better position than the states behind the Iron Curtain.

Spratly Disputes and Suggested Methods to Overcome the Conflict

The Spratly Islands Dispute in the South China Sea has been the most contested maritime area in recent years. This writing intends to understand the disputes happening around the South China Sea which specify on Spratly Island which is in hot area and being claimed by many countries surrounded the island. Hence, ASEAN as the supranational institution that involves with the countries within South East Asia responsible to unite and overcome the conflict within the area to avoid any subsequent that could worsen in future. As a representation institution among the South East Asia, ASEAN multilateral has suggested initiative such as pushing for the Code of Conduct among the claimant countries. The writing also studied about on ASEAN countries claim on the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea enhanced our understanding on how to pursue national interest through the law of the sea and conflict resolution. I choose this type of methodology which is Qualitative and Quantitative method. For data collection, in-depth interviews and desktop research were carried out. Quantitative method usually uses numbers or numerical data to explain a phenomenon. It involves seeking ways to validate hypothesis and pre-plan with variables on how to explain occurrences. However, the writing uses qualitative method. The multilateral regional organization like ASEAN has played substantial role in managing and solving the Spratly Islands dispute in the SCS. This writing will analyse the role of ASEAN and the involvement of ASEAN countries in various talks and agreements on in the Spratly Islands dispute.

Conflict and Cooperation in Global Commons: Theory and Evidence from the Caspian Sea

The conventional literature on the commons involves small, local resources such as coastal fisheries, community forestry, small-scale irrigation, and community pasture. We focus on conflict and cooperation in the Caspian Sea – a global commons – involving five claimant countries as well as interests of major powers (the United States, European Union, and China). Building on the work of Stern and Young on the study of conflict and cooperation in global commons, we model the case as a prisoner’s dilemma game with the two different outcomes. In the North Caspian Sea, competing claimant countries – Russia, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan – have agreed to cooperate and solve their differences over ownership of oil fields. In contrast, claimants in the South Caspian Sea – Azerbaijan, Iran, and Turkmenistan – have failed to cooperate despite decades of trying. Using analytic narratives, we suggest that politics (or strategic calculations) could help explain these two different outcomes. In making these calculations, countries will act in their rational self-interest, given the prospects of international anarchy. We suggest that this realist account can be partly explained by the convergence of economic interests, geopolitics, and cultural distance. We argue that the study of global commons would benefit from understanding realist theories of international relations.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Duterte Administration’s Appeasement Policy: Examining the Connection Between the Two National Strategies

This article examines the link between the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Duterte Administration’s appeasement policy on China. Relative to the South China Sea dispute, China uses the BRI as a means to ease and stabilize its strained relations with claimant countries like the Philippines. The BRI has enabled China to influence the Philippines in changing its policy on Chinese maritime expansion in the South China Sea. Lured by the BRI, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte is undoing his predecessor’s policy of balancing China’s expansive claim in the disputed waters. Based on his calculation, the Philippines will benefit from the BRI initiative—particularly in the revival of the maritime silk route—as it dovetails with his administration’s massive infrastructure build-up program. In conclusion, the article contends that President Duterte is convinced that his appeasement policy toward China is worth pursuing because it makes the Philippines a beneficiary of the BRI. However, 3 years into his term, he has yet to see the implementation of BRI-funded infrastructure projects, which have been delayed by technical problems, the Philippine military, and the Filipino people’s distrust of China because of the South China Sea issue in particular, and its behavior as emergent power in East Asia in general.

A Comparative Study of Competing Discursive Construction of South China Sea Disputes in the Chinese and US English-Language Newspapers

This study examines the discursive construction of South China Sea dispute in China Daily and The New York Times from April 2016 to December 2017. Drawing on Van Dijk’s account of critical discourse analysis and the linguistic framework of Appraisal theory (Martin & White, 2005), this study investigates how three social actors in the dispute, namely China, United States, Philippines, are differently constructed with the strategic use of attitude resources in the two newspapers. The corpus analyzed consists of 45 newspaper texts from China Daily and 49 newspaper texts from The New York Times. The analysis reveals competing discursive construction of social actors that constitute positive us-representation and negative other-representation in the two newspapers. For example, China Daily constructs China as a peace-loving country, insisting on the peaceful means and the cooperation with ASEAN and other claimant countries to resolve the dispute, whereas The New York Times depicts China as threat, hegemony and provocation. Such competing discursive construction not only reflects the ideological stance of two newspapers, but also functions to legitimize their countries’ policies and decisions in the South China Sea dispute.

Cooperation & Security Dilemma In The South China Sea

This article will talk about security dilemma and offense-defense balance in the South China Sea. The rising of China’s power in the South China Sea that facilitate the process security dilemma makes cooperation between claimant countries become more difficult. Regarding this matter, it’s important to explain why cooperation in the area is difficult in the midst of many literatures that advocated cooperation as the tools for conflict management in the South China Sea. In order to form an ideal explanation, this article will refer to the concepts of security dilemma and offense-defense balance by Robert Jervis. The data in this article will be explored using qualitative research method of literature review to illustrate the distribution of power in the region. Through the data exploration, this article found that China’s offensive power in the South China Sea is large enough to cause the sense insecurity and security dilemma. Thus, this article argue that the security dilemma caused by China’s offensive power capability in the South China Sea is the main the reason that inhibiting cooperation between claimant states.

ASEAN AND CHINA IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTES

The South China Sea disputes involve both island and maritime claims among sovereign states and the issue has long been a point of debate in international politics. It involves not only the countries in dispute but also other major world powers, including the United States. Its important strategic location and the abundant resources make the South China Sea a target of contention among the claimant countries. The arbitral ruling in July 2016 gives a new momentum to the dispute. The article examines the strategic relations of China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) by analyzing the positions and steps taken by ASEAN and China, as well as ASEAN-China joint initiatives. It also discusses the challenges and viable solutions to the dispute.

ASEAN, the “South China Sea” Arbitral Award, and the Code of Conduct: New Challenges, New Approaches

The paper examines the South China Sea disputes and primarily focuses on developments since 2013 when the Philippines filed International Arbitration. The argues that the South China Sea situation involves two fundamental and interdependent considerations: (1) the right of sovereign states to access their legal entitlements unimpeded, and (2) the extent to which Asia and the international community value a rules‐based regional order. Before there is any possibility of redress on the issue, the paper contends that other key stakeholder states (such as Japan, the U. S., Australia and India) will also need to be more strongly engaged with the issue and support claimant countries through a diverse array of activities ranging from investments in capacity building to the use of foreign coastguards (if invited) to police and protect resources within the Exclusive Economic Zones, as clarified by the July 2016 Arbitral Ruling.

The EU as an Actor in Southeast Asia in the Context of the South China Sea Arbitration

The ruling on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal in the case of the South China Sea dispute between the Philippines and China has had positive impact on the credibility of the Philippines and other Southeast Asian claimant countries. This improved positioning for Southeast Asia vis-à-vis China has however mainly seen the promotion of bilateral country relationships with China and displayed limited utility for the Southeast Asian region as a whole. Despite contemporary unpalatability of multilateralism as a viable means for dispute resolution to the claimant countries, there is an inherent multilateral opportunity to the rise of Sino-Southeast Asian bilateralisms post-ruling, especially favourable for regional, inter-regional, and global for a in which Southeast Asian countries and China interact with international partners. Primary aim of this article is to illustrate this indirect opportunity for multilateralism with focus on the extent to which there has been and is enhanced space for the European Union (EU) and its Member States as international partners to express their commitment to peace and security in the Asia-Pacific in the specific context of the South China Sea arbitration.

Use and Utility of the Non-Traditional Security Concept in the Context of the South China Sea Arbitration

The arbitral award in 2016 has had a positive impact on the credibility of the Philippines and other Southeast Asian claimant countries in the South China Sea. However, questions about China’s divisive influence in the neighbourhood remain more relevant than ever and necessitate inquiry into the use and utility of dialogue on non-traditional security (NTS) issues in building confidence in times of low confidence, with specific reference to the period of the arbitration process and ruling.

Distinguished Status Quo: The American Antarctic Quadrant after Submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

Submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (clcs) by countries claiming sovereignty in Antarctica confirm the resilience of the Antarctic status quo to legal challenges. Through this status quo, these submissions have not been hindered by differences among claimant countries and between them and countries not recognizing any claim in Antarctica. It is in the American Antarctic Quadrant—where Argentina, Chile and United Kingdom have overlapping claims—that the status quo achieves its most extensive geographic and normative range, covering an area and disputes south and north of latitude 60°, in particular disputes between Argentina and the United Kingdom; this determines also the alternatives available to Chile for filing its submission to the clcs by 2019.

The South China Sea Disputes: Is High Politics Overtaking?

The aim of this article is to examine the implications of high politics in the South China Sea disputes, which basically involve the United States, and other claimant countries, such as Vietnam and the Philippines on one side, and China on the other. The two main actors, namely China and the United States, appear to be re‐assertive. All the claimant countries are asking for their stakes, which involve their sovereignty, and sovereign and maritime rights. The fall‐out is the polarization of the stakeholders and greater military build‐up. Overt military confrontation is a remote possibility at the moment, mainly because of overriding considerations, such as interdependence in economy and a trend towards regionalism. Nevertheless, the array of sophisticated military forces and the vital national interests of the stakeholders in the Sea tend to portend a problematic frontier. This article indicates certain policy implications and attempts to develop the framework of a scenario that is likely to emerge premised on high politics.

What makes territory important: tangible and intangible dimensions

Conflicts over territory have resulted in innumerable wars and other violent incidents, but the reasons that some territory is more highly valued or volatile than other areas may not be obvious. This paper demonstrates a taxonomy for analyzing international territorial disputes that seeks to capture their tangible and symbolic dimensions and to weigh them as the international community might. Twenty-six territorial disputes, including offshore areas and separatist issues, were examined and scored according to 15 criteria for objective prominence and 7 criteria related to how a country might view the dispute in terms of its national interest. The taxonomy used Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process to identify tangible and intangible properties, measure their interrelations, and produce intermediate and overall ranks. Each dispute was evaluated for prominence by examining intensifying (symbolic) factors, measures of magnitude, and characteristics that retard resolution. The magnitude of a dispute was judged to contribute the most to overall prominence, having twice the weight of the other two factors. The top five disputes in terms of prominence were the Kurdish issue, Kashmir, Tibet, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Xinjiang. The second hierarchy evaluated the disputes from the perspective of an international actor, in this case the United States. When judged by U.S. national interest, the most important factors were the deployment of U.S. forces in the claimant countries and if one of the claimants were a U.S. ally. Finally, the results from the two hierarchies were compared.

The Spratly Islands dispute

The Spratly Islands, in the southern reaches of the South China Sea, have become the focus of an unstabilising territorial dispute. Five of the sea's littoral states or political entities lay conflicting claims to all or part of the island group and have set up military outposts in them as prospects of significant hydrocarbon resources in the sea floor mount. After a 1988 armed clash between Vietnamese and Chinese forces, the claimants have sought ways to manage the conflict peacefully through informal workshops and ASEAN resolutions. Meanwhile, troubling military build‐ups by claimant countries continue and petroleum exploration activity has increased, shifting the emphasis of the dispute from island claims to maritime jurisdiction. Island claims must be settled, however, before the Law of the Sea Convention can be brought to bear. The unique complexity of this dispute makes resolution of sovereignty unlikely and points to multilateral co‐operative resource exploitation.