The South China Sea conflict: legal disputes and the need for a multilateral resolution

The South China Sea remains one of the most contested regions in global geopolitics, where strategic interests, economic stability and national sovereignty converge. China’s expansive claims over much of the South China Sea, symbolized by the “Nine-Dash Line,” have generated international tensions.

These claims overlap with the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of several Southeast Asian countries, including Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. At the heart of this dispute is the question of whether China’s claims align with international law, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

China’s line of script-movers and their claims

China’s Nine-Dash Line represents its assertion of sovereignty over a vast portion of the South China Sea. This line covers approximately 90% of the sea, overlapping with the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of neighboring Southeast Asian countries. Historically, China bases its claim on “historical rights,” arguing that Chinese fishermen and sailors have used these waters for centuries, predating the existence of modern maritime law.

However, China’s exact claims remain ambiguous. The Eleven-Dash Line, introduced by the Kuomintang government in the early 20th century, was modified to the current Nine-Dash Line by the Communist Party of China in 1953. Although the historical basis for China’s claims offers some legitimacy, the legal foundation under contemporary international law, in particular UNCLOS, remains highly contested.

UNCLOS and International Maritime Law

Adopted in 1982, UNCLOS provides a comprehensive framework for regulating maritime activities, including territorial waters, EEZs and continental shelves. UNCLOS sets out clear guidelines: a State’s territorial sea is limited to 12 nautical miles from its coast, and the EEZ extends up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline, granting the State sovereign rights over the exploration and use of marine resources within that zone.

While UNCLOS attempts to resolve maritime disputes, China’s expansive claims under the Nine-Dash Line exceed these legal limits. The overlap between China’s claimed areas and its neighbors’ EEZs is a point of major contention, as is China’s claim that its “historical rights” exempt it from UNCLOS provisions.

China’s Historical Rights and Legal Challenges

China’s claim to “historical rights” over the South China Sea is based on the argument that its presence in the region predates modern maritime law. However, UNCLOS limits historical claims, restricting them to minor bays and excluding the vast maritime spaces that China seeks to control. As a result, China’s legal position under UNCLOS appears weak.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) addressed this issue in 2016 when the Philippines brought a case against China. The PCA ruled that China’s claims to historic rights within the Nine-Dash Line were inconsistent with UNCLOS. This ruling represented a significant setback for China’s legal arguments, undermining the legitimacy of its extensive claims. However, China has rejected the ruling and continues to assert its presence in the South China Sea by building artificial islands and military installations.

The limitations of UNCLOS

While UNCLOS provides an essential legal framework for maritime governance, it has significant limitations for resolving disputes such as those in the South China Sea. One of the main challenges is the lack of a clear definition of “historic rights” in UNCLOS. Although the convention recognizes “historic bays,” it does not address broader claims of historical use or sovereignty over vast maritime regions.

Another limitation is the unique geographic complexity of the South China Sea, a semi-enclosed body of water with numerous islands, reefs and shoals. These features complicate the application of UNCLOS provisions on territorial waters and EEZs, as determining baselines and delimiting overlapping claims becomes more difficult.

Moreover, although UNCLOS includes dispute resolution mechanisms such as binding arbitration, its enforcement power is limited. As demonstrated by the TPA ruling, even when decisions are issued, enforcement depends on states’ willingness to comply, and powerful nations such as China may choose to ignore unfavorable rulings.

China’s actions and regional responses

In recent years, China has stepped up efforts to solidify its claims in the South China Sea, building artificial islands and military outposts on disputed reefs and atolls. These developments have raised concerns among neighboring countries and the broader international community about the militarization of the region and the potential for conflict.

Southeast Asian nations, particularly the Philippines and Vietnam, have expressed strong opposition to China’s activities, emphasizing their legal rights under UNCLOS. The Philippines, in particular, has taken legal action that resulted in the TPA ruling in 2016. However, despite international support for the ruling, China has refused to comply, highlighting the limitations of international law in addressing the issue.

A multilateral approach to resolution

Given the complexity of the South China Sea dispute, a strictly legal resolution under UNCLOS seems unlikely. Instead, a multifaceted approach is needed, combining legal frameworks with diplomatic efforts and regional cooperation.

Regional dialogue, particularly through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), offers a potential platform for negotiation and conflict resolution. ASEAN has already begun discussions with China on a code of conduct for the South China Sea, which, if successfully implemented, could help manage tensions and prevent further militarization of the region.

In addition, cooperation mechanisms such as joint resource management zones could offer a viable solution. By focusing on shared interests, such as fisheries management and environmental protection, countries could reduce tensions while ensuring equitable access to the region’s resources.

In other words

The South China Sea dispute highlights tensions between historical claims and modern international law, exemplified by the conflict between China’s expansive Nine-Dash Line and the provisions of UNCLOS. Despite the 2016 TPA ruling, which undermined the legal basis for China’s claims, the dispute remains unresolved as China continues to assert its presence in the region. Although UNCLOS provides a critical framework, its limitations in addressing ambiguous historical claims and the complex geography of the South China Sea show that purely legal solutions are insufficient.

To prevent further escalation and potential conflict, a broader approach is needed. Regional organizations such as ASEAN can facilitate dialogue and foster cooperation between China and the other claimant states. In addition, focusing on practical solutions, such as joint resource development or establishing common environmental protections, could offer a way to manage tensions. A long-term resolution will likely require a combination of legal clarity, diplomatic engagement, and mutual economic interests.

Note: This is an article republished from the «Defence, Research and Studies» media outlet through a cooperation agreement between both parties for the dissemination of journalistic content. Original link.