South China Sea Dispute Research Articles

From the border of ‘barrier’ to the border of ‘connectivity’: The current development and connectivity of Vietnam-China cross-border infrastructure

The purpose of the article is to examine the changes in cross-border cooperation between Vietnam and China as a result of the development and connectivity of cross-border infrastructure between the two countries. This article is based on a mixed-methods study that includes desk research and surveys. The article explains how the two countries’ approaches to border shifted from ‘barrier’ to the border of ‘connectivity’. Accordingly, the article examines the changes in border management cooperation between the two countries, which serves as a vital basis for cross-border development cooperation. Furthermore, the article examines the perceptions of the two countries regarding the development and connectivity of cross-border infrastructure for comprehensive cooperation between the two countries and beyond. At the same time, the article examines how the two countries promote the development and connectivity of cross-border infrastructure, both hard and soft. The article also examined some initial results and some issues facing the two countries. The paper concludes with some findings. In particular, the article concludes that increased border connectivity will encourage cross-border cooperation and integration between the two countries and help to alleviate security concerns. Although the two countries have made efforts to open their borders, in the transition from a border of ‘barriers’ to a border of ‘connectivity’ remain partly to Vietnamese people’s memories of the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese border war, as well as the impact of the two countries’ unresolved South China Sea disputes. However, Vietnam also tries to promote cross-border cooperation within a controllable level.

Does Reputation Matter? Explaining China’s Evolving Strategy in South China Sea Disputes

What drives China’s approach to disputes in the South China Sea? While conventional wisdom often attributes Beijing’s actions primarily to material interests, this overlooks the possible influence of non-material factors such as China’s desire to uphold its national reputation. Contrary to the assumptions of traditional prospect theory, China’s behavior is not driven solely by calculations of gains and losses but also by considerations for its international reputation. Beijing may temper its assertiveness when its reputation is declining but still manageable, as demonstrated by its increased willingness to resolve disputes multilaterally after its global image was tarnished following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Contrarily, China may resort to more assertive actions when these do not significantly hurt its reputation or when the damage seems irreversible, as seen in its unwavering stance during the 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff with the Philippines.

Language and Social Issue Relationship: Journal and Speeches on the South China Sea Dispute

The paper made use of and deconstructed some of the extracted salient texts and some speeches from published articles which can relate to the language’s relationship with social issues from correspondents criticizing former President Duterte about the South China Sea dispute; on his independent foreign policy and his alleged ruthless anti-criminality campaigns specifically on the war on drugs. The introduction details how the social issues of the Philippines-China dispute on the South China Sea began. In Section 2, some salient extracted texts in subsections 2.7 and 2.8 were deconstructed and analyzed using the combined analytical lenses of the Language of Peace, and Media Content theories. The analysis reveals that the language used in both published articles was predominantly integral to violence such that under the journal there were 83% violent social issues and 17% integral to peace, and under the speeches, 79% % violent social issues and 21% integral to peace with only 21%. On the other hand, as regards PH-China South China Sea disputes, as many as 36% of social issues favored Pro-peace Advocacy or preferred bilateral negotiation in contrast to 64% favoring Pro-Confrontational Advocacy, or legal offensive as with the Hague and with the UNCLOS.

Vymezení umělých ostrovů v mezinárodním mořském právu a jeho význam pro spory v Jihočínském moři

This paper explores the concept of islands in international law and its implications for the South China Sea dispute. Islands are important for various reasons, such as territorial sovereignty, maritime rights, and natural resources. However, the legal binding definition of artificial islands has not been enacted by any international document until now. This paper traces the historical development of the concept of islands, from the Hague Conference in 1930 to the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982. It also analyses the challenges and opportunities of artificial islands, which are man-made structures that can serve different purposes but can also create various legal and environmental problems. Artificial islands are especially relevant for the South China sea dispute, which involves multiple costal states, while China has significant geopolitical and economic implications. This paper argues that the South China Sea dispute can be resolved through cooperation and dialogue, based on international law framework. Taking into account the provisions of UNCLOS, South China Sea dispute, state practise, and legal scholarship, this article aims to unpack the complexities surrounding artificial island and implications of artificial islands on the international relations.

Peran Arbitrase dalam Resolusi Sengketa Internasional: Studi Kasus Sengketa Laut Tiongkok Selatan

The purpose of this study was to find out how the arbitration line could settle south China's sea dispute. The study USES a normative-law study method, including a constitutional approach, a case approach, and a historical approach. Data collected and processed is viewed as secondary; The collection of primary and secondary legal materials is done by literature; Thereafter, the data is systematized and analyzed through descriptive methods. The results of this study explain south China sea disputes raised by the Philippines, which feel that they have a right to the region. The Philippines brought their conflict with the country of China in the south China sea into the international arbitration system. The Philippines claims that the coral reef environment was damaged by China's action to build an artificial island.

Navigating Turbulence: ASEAN’s Leadership Challenges in the Human Rights Violation in Myanmar and South China Sea Dispute

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is one of the most rapidly growing regional organizations, significantly influencing the geopolitical landscape of Southeast Asia and beyond. Despite these successes, however, ASEAN currently faces serious challenges in maintaining its unity, solidarity, and cohesiveness. A critical issue is the divergence in views, attitudes, and policies of member countries on crucial political and security matters. This study explores the concept of leadership within the structure of regionalization in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The concept is shaped by structural capabilities derived from the region's resource production and manpower, with charisma playing a crucial role in leadership. Based on this concept, this study explores the leadership role in ASEAN's efforts to address current and upcoming issues, particularly about human rights abuses in Myanmar and South China Sea disputes. This study compares Indonesia's leadership within ASEAN to that of other member states using a qualitative comparative case study design. This method investigates how different elements affect the phenomenon that is being studied. A more nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between various variables, including leadership, domestic turmoil, and regional dynamics, can be obtained through the analysis of cases in real-life contexts. The study posits that ASEAN will not be able to uphold its integrity and accelerate the realization of a harmonious ASEAN society in the future without robust leadership. Unlike in its early years, ASEAN today lacks a leader capable of mobilizing political resources to address and resolve collective issues within the organization.

The South China Sea Dispute and Regional Response

Background: Beginning in December 2013, the South China Sea dispute has emerged as a complex and highly contested issue with significant implications for regional stability in East and Southeast Asia. The Chinese military began constructing artificial islands anchored by seven coral atolls in the Spratly Islands until it had created land that it then claimed in October 2015. The construction is over 3000 acres and houses military equipment (anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems) and personnel for the People's Republic of China. Objective: From a realist perspective, the dispute reflects a struggle for power and influence among claimant states, driven by their desire to secure regional strategic interests. Neighbouring countries, recognising the implications of China's rise as a significant power, have responded mainly by using soft realist methods to accommodate or counter China's growing influence in a collective setting. This paper explores the geopolitical implications of the dispute and how other powers have chosen to engage with China and other regional actors. Methods: This article is a case study. The article analyses the case of the South China Sea dispute since 2000 through a realist lens. It first explains the lens and its focal points. Then, it examines the different facets of the dispute through this lens: economic interests, national security concerns, domestic and regional politics, and historical issues. The focus is on analysing China and ASEAN member-states as the primary parties to the conflict. Results: This lens provides valuable insights into the power struggles, self-interest, and security concerns that underlie the conflict. This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of its multifaceted nature by critically examining the dispute's territorial claims, legal frameworks, and historical context. It also explores the geopolitical implications and the involvement of major regional powers. Liberal solutions have largely failed, while more minor actors have cooperated on limited terms when their interests intersect using soft realist diplomacy and collective action within international arenas. Conclusion: The dispute has unveiled the limits of international diplomatic efforts brokered by organisations such as ASEAN to address aggressive behaviour consistently. Small and medium states are largely constrained from directly confronting China, have accommodated China, used international forums to advance power positions and prestige, and cooperated on other issues to indirectly address the dispute.

Role conceptions and diplomatic behaviours: comparing Japan and South Korea in the South China Sea

ABSTRACT The South China Sea is a region marked by overlapping territorial claims and escalating tensions among various nations. Unlike claimant states, whose direct territorial interests significantly shape their foreign policy decisions, non-claimant states possess a broader range of diplomatic options. This article examines the contrasting diplomatic behaviours of non-claimant regional states in the South China Sea disputes. Through a comparative case study of Japan and South Korea, it argues that the divergent responses of these two middle powers largely stem from the roles they assume within the policy arena. Japan, as an assertive actor driven by a sense of obligation, has actively taken positions on disputed events to demonstrate its presence. Conversely, South Korea, adopting the role of a detached observer, has exercised caution and maintained a low profile, aiming to avoid potential diplomatic costs. The findings highlight the significance of ideational factors in influencing regional states’ responses to security challenges. Furthermore, this study contributes to role theory research by introducing a new term for further study and by demonstrating the tangible effects of role conceptions on state behaviour in specific policy contexts.

Indonesians Perception on the South China Sea Dispute: Support Vector Machine and Naïve Bayes Approach

In recent years, relations between Indonesia and China have become increasingly cordial. However, a potential source of tension is emerging in the form of a heightened dispute in the South China Sea. The government of Indonesia is considered an ally, however there has been a long-standing negative opinion among Indonesians regarding China, which has influenced the way both the general public and the political elite have perceived the relations between Indonesia and China. This research has two objectives. The first is to examine Indonesian perceptions regarding the South China Sea conflict. The second is to compare the performance of Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Multinomial Naïve Bayes as a method of sentiment analysis. Using 7.051 Indonesian-language posts from social media X as a dataset, the result shows that a significant portion of Indonesians view the dispute negatively, fearing potential escalation and threats to national security. Despite these concerns, there is reason to believe that Indonesia can play a proactive role in resolving the conflict through ASEAN and UNCLOS frameworks. Meanwhile, SVM has been demonstrated to be an effective method for handling sentiment analysis data, achieving an accuracy of 87.95%. This work contributes to the field of sentiment analysis by highlighting social media as a valuable platform and by demonstrating the effectiveness of SVM. Furthermore, the study offers new insights for the field of international relations by analyzing the South China Sea dispute through a machine learning lens, which may lead to the development of novel perspectives.

PATTERN OF ALLIANCES IN SOUTH CHINA SEA: AN ANALYSIS OF US REBALANCE POLICY

The prominence of America’s ‘Pacific turn’ has not been reduced despite conflicts have conflagrated in the elsewhere regions. The US rebalance towards Asia policy has been in the limelight since its proclamation under Obama administration. This policy has been based upon forging alliances, especially with countries of Asia Pacific. Though successive US administration brought few changes in policy, yet, none have downgraded the notion of China as challenging US preponderance. The realists argue that a state either balances with power or against threat, albeit bandwagon on occasions. The South China Sea dispute exist as territorial conflict between China and the littorals states, presents an ideal situation for the later states to form an alliance with USA. However, these littoral states have instead opted hedging behavior towards greater powers. This article measures this behavior deducing the fact that complex interdependence among states and associated threats effect the traditional alliance patterns.

ASEAN's Diplomatic and Strategic Engagement in The South China Sea Dispute: An Analysis

This article highlights ASEAN’s efforts to resolve the dispute in the SCS. These efforts include the Declaration of Conduct of Parties, and the Code of Conduct. This paper also shed light on the collective efforts of the organization through its various mechanisms such as the ARF and ADMM+. These mechanisms contributed in facilitating negotiations among parties of the conflict. However, ASEAN faces challenges such as the different interests of its members, no legally binding agreement and intervention by other influential states. Every ASEAN member state have different attitude towards the matter which makes which makes it difficult to achieve a united stance on the issue. The decision-making process of ASEAN is also discussed briefly.

‘Crawling dissatisfaction’: understanding China’s bilateral approach towards South China Sea disputes

ABSTRACT China’s foreign policy behaviour has been highly scrutinized in the last decade. Its foreign policy approach towards neighbouring countries is no exception. Scholars have mostly focused on China’s hard, soft, or ‘dual’ approach to explaining Beijing’s current foreign behaviours corresponding to the South China Sea dispute. However, specific studies on China’s bilateral approach remain understudied, while understanding regarding this matter might result in a better perspective towards regional peace and stability. This paper, thus, has two aims: firstly, it goes beyond rationalist perspectives in understanding China’s bilateral approach; secondly, it provides an explanation of why China chose this approach. It is, therefore, argued that China’s bilateral approach is vastly influenced by Chinese strategic culture as an effort to seek stability. It, moreover, also argues that China’s bilateral approach is not a mere an image of its soft diplomatic approach but more deeply it is a practice of its dissatisfaction towards the liberal order embraced by ASEAN. By choosing a bilateral approach, while formally maintaining multilateralism, China ‘crawlingly’ promotes a non-liberal approach towards ASEAN.

Counterterrorism Diplomacy: ASEAN’s New Chapter of Regional Engagement

Counterterrorism has become a global trend since 9/11. Following the incident, the U.S. launched the Global War on Terror, which developed numerous international partnerships in dealing with terrorism. This included the Southeast Asia region. Most ASEAN countries have leveraged their cooperation through counterterrorism diplomacy ever since. This approach, however, endorsed the law enforcement agency due to the adopted criminal justice model. With the rise of the Islamic State (IS) movement, which links with various terrorist networks, the threat of terrorism has gained more attention in Southeast Asia, particularly after the Marawi incident. Complicatedly, the IS merged with separatist and terrorist groups in the South Philippines. Many observers predicted that if it is still uncontrollable, it may create a spillover to surrounding ASEAN countries. Thus, this circumstance has generated an opportunity for greater collaboration among ASEAN countries in dealing with ISIS in the region. Unlike past cooperation, this new chapter may facilitate a more substantial portion of military-to-military engagement. Counterterrorism diplomacy may potentially strengthen regional engagement, which has been restrained due to the South China Sea dispute with China.

Cascading risks in a social-ecological system: the South China Sea disputes

The situation in the South China Sea (SCS) is the epitome of a wicked problem where issues cross state boundaries and domains, and where stakeholders range from fishers to governments to shipping industries. This article frames the SCS as a social-ecological system that is composed of biological and social subsystems. It explains how, for over 70 years, global political and economic structures have conditioned state responses – territorialisation, militarisation, extraction, and exploitation – that, in turn, have led to cascading risks for further environmental degradation and conflict at different levels of community. This article uses the grammar of riskification, rather than securitisation, because the crisis in the SCS requires governance rather than military action. Any code of conduct needs to emphasise stewardship rather than ownership and to be climate-centred rather than threat-centred, in order to address the very real risk of the collapsing biological subsystem upon which the social subsystem ultimately depends.

South Korea’s middle power diplomacy and the South China Sea disputes

ABSTRACT The middle power concept is versatile enough to categorise any states in the middle range of the world order that display certain behavioural characteristics known as middle power behaviours. Meanwhile, the adoption of the middle power concept as an explicit policy position by Korean IR scholars and policy researchers can shape and influence the actual policy practice as South Korea’s academic discussions on ‘middle power diplomacy knowledge’ (MPD) have advanced with the purpose of serving its national interests. This research sought to better conceptualise South Korea’s middle power diplomacy particularly on the South China Sea disputes between the USA and China and determine whether or not it is essential for its national interests through active Korean IR scholars’ and policy researchers’ perspectives. It found that there is more uncertainty or concern about employing ‘middle power diplomacy’ due to their assessment of finding greater drawbacks than benefits. Yet, the utmost reason behind such discrepancy stems from the epistemic fallacies prevalent in the middle power scholarship. Ultimately, discussions on South Korea’s middle power diplomacy should begin with the awareness of such fallacies and attempt to address them by critically examining the ontology of South Korea’s middle power categorisation, which leads one to question what kind of reality entails South Korea’s being a ‘middle power’ in the SCS disputes and, from there, determine its appropriate role.

Assessing the China Threat: Perspectives of University Students in Jakarta on the South China Sea Dispute and the Belt and Road Initiative

Assessing the China Threat: Perspectives of University Students in Jakarta on the South China Sea Dispute and the Belt and Road Initiative

Navigating Around Conflict: The Indonesia Way to Initiating Peace Talk in the South China Sea Dispute

Objective: This paper aims to unravel the pattern of Indonesia's diplomatic maneuver in the South China Sea dispute over the years. Result and conclusion: We conclude that Indonesia has repeatedly shown a tendency to take the initiative and lead the talks to promote a peaceful settlement. The proposed zero drafts in 2012 indicate Indonesia's strategy to lead the conversation toward peaceful agenda. In order to execute its diplomatic maneuver, Indonesia repeatedly exploited ASEAN Forum to achieve milestones in the South China Sea peaceful settlement. Research implication: The South China Sea has been diplomatic for Indonesia's Foreign Policy for ages. In response to the matters, Indonesia has been persistently implementing two diplomatic alternatives by enforcing formal diplomatic ways utilizing the ASEAN forum and executing an informal path through Managing Potential Conflict in the South China Sea. Originality/value: The two ways have been a fundamental Indonesian foreign policy landscape towards South China Sea dispute since the 1990s until arguably 2014. Various scholarly manuscripts conclude that the approach proved unsuccessful in effectively bringing a settlement to the South China Sea disputes.

Sengketa Laut Cina Selatan: Analisis Realis terhadap Perebutan Kekuasaan, Respon Regional, dan Implikasi Geopolitik

The South China Sea dispute has emerged as a complex and highly contentious issue with significant implications for regional stability. From a realist perspective, these disputes reflect power struggles and influence among claimant states, driven by their desire to secure strategic interests in the region. Neighboring countries, recognizing the impact of China's rise as a great power, have responded by boosting their military capabilities and forming alliances to counterbalance China's growing influence. However, analyzing South China Sea disputes through a realist lens provides valuable insights into power struggles, vested interests, and security issues underlying the conflict. Through a critical review of territorial claims, legal frameworks, and the historical context of disputes, this paper provides a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of such disputes. In addition, the report explores the geopolitical implications and involvement of major powers in the region.

What ASEAN Must Learn from Timor-Leste: A Tripartite Analysis on Australian Foreign Policy Related to Timor Sea Treaty 2018

The Timor Gap had been a hotspot of territorial dispute between Australia and Timor-Leste. In 2018, Australia finally agreed to settle a permanent maritime boundary in favour of Timor-Leste. Why was Australia willing to sacrifice the border and give a favourable outcome to Timor-Leste? The research examined the importance of the tripartite approach to Foreign Policy analysis to understand why a country may choose seemingly unfavourable options in territorial disputes. The analysis showed how Australian foreign policy was influenced by agency-structure interactions within the international system. The research demonstrated that structural constraints at the international level influenced Australia’s decision, including the South China Sea dispute between ASEAN members and China, previous agreements Australia-Timor-Leste on the management of the Timor Gap, and domestic political dynamics in Australia. The research reveals a relationship between actors’ structural and dispositional dimensions in foreign policy. In the case of Australia, there is a strong link between democratic values ​​and respect for the international rules-based order. Altogether, this situation prompted Australia to continue negotiations with Timor-Leste over the Timor Gap and ultimately to accept an agreement for maritime delimitation in Timor-Leste’s favor.

Why the quad is not squaring off in the South China Sea: evaluating interests, objectives and capacity

ABSTRACT The Quad has formulated repeated statements confirming their shared interests and common commitment to maritime issues and highlighting the South China Sea as an area of strategic priority. However, beyond diplomatic declarations, the Quad has taken few actions in the maritime domain and none to influence the dynamics of the South China Sea disputes. Why words have not been translated into action is the central question of this article. Comparative analysis involving three variables – interests, stakes and power projection capacity – shows that the members’ primary divergence is related to India’s deemphasising the preservation of the status quo rules-based maritime order. India is also the member preventing the Quad from moving into coordinated activities, as can be seen by the regularly coordinated diplomatic stances and naval actions conducted trilaterally among the others in the South China Sea. This will sustain the Quad as a secondary actor in the South China Sea disputes. Furthermore, it suggests that whereas Australia and Japan are responding to the evolving geopolitical structure by finding common cause with the United States-led order, India is behaving as a rising power seeking to manage the challenge posed by China while growing into its own great power status.