The South China Sea, a vital artery for global trade and a region rich in resources remains a dangerous geopolitical flashpoint. At its heart lies a fundamental conflict: the expansive, historically rooted claims of the People's Republic of China versus the established international legal framework enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This editorial argues that Beijing's persistent disregard for UNCLOS, particularly its rejection of the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling, not only destabilizes Southeast Asia but also poses a profound threat to the entire rules-based international maritime order, necessitating a more concerted and principled international response.
Follow Cssprepforum WhatsApp Channel: Pakistan’s Largest CSS, PMS Prep Community updated
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
Before exploring the implications of the South China Sea standoff, it is essential to understand the laws regarding navigation in the seas. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, often referred to as the "constitution for the oceans," is one of the most significant achievements in international law. Concluded in 1982 and entering into force in 1994, it provides a comprehensive legal framework governing all aspects of ocean space, from territorial waters and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) to freedom of navigation and marine environmental protection. Moreover, over 160 countries, including China and all other South China Sea littoral states (except Taiwan, which is not a signatory), are signatories. Indeed, UNCLOS meticulously defines maritime entitlements, ensuring that coastal states have sovereign rights over resources within their 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelves while also guaranteeing crucial navigational freedoms for all nations through these zones and on the high seas.
However, the South China Sea dispute presents a stark challenge to this carefully constructed order. China asserts "indisputable sovereignty" over almost the entirety of the sea, demarcated by its ambiguous "nine-dash line" (now often depicted as a ten or eleven-dash line). This claim, purportedly based on historical usage, overlaps significantly with the UNCLOS-defined Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and continental shelves of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia. Additionally, the dispute involves contested sovereignty over islands, rocks, and reefs, like the Spratlys and Paracels, access to rich fishing grounds, and potential undersea oil and gas reserves. In 2013, the Philippines initiated arbitration proceedings against China under UNCLOS, culminating in a landmark 2016 ruling by an Arbitral Tribunal in The Hague, which largely invalidated China's sweeping historical claims and found its actions in the Philippines' Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) unlawful. Beijing, however, has consistently rejected the ruling as "null and void."
The Primacy of UNCLOS over Vague Historical Claims
A cornerstone of modern international law is its preference for clearly defined, universally agreed-upon rules over nebulous historical assertions. UNCLOS was precisely designed to supersede conflicting, often ancient, claims by establishing a uniform system of maritime jurisdiction. However, China's "nine-dash line" is anathema to this principle. It lacks precise coordinates, its legal basis under international law is opaque at best, and it directly contravenes the explicit provisions of UNCLOS regarding the generation of maritime zones. Besides, the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal was unequivocal. For instance, there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line'. Allowing such ill-defined historical claims to supersede a near-universally ratified treaty would unravel decades of progress in maritime law, opening a Pandora's Box of similar anachronistic claims globally. The international community, and especially UNCLOS signatories, has a vested interest in upholding the Convention's clear delineation of rights and responsibilities.
The 2016 Arbitral Award: A Legal Benchmark Ignored
Additionally, the 2016 ruling was not merely an advisory opinion; it was a legally binding interpretation of UNCLOS provisions as they apply to the South China Sea. Its findings were comprehensive: it clarified the status of various maritime features, affirmed the Philippines' sovereign rights within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and condemned China's interference with Filipino fishing and petroleum exploration, its construction of artificial islands, and the damage caused to the marine environment. Nonetheless, China's outright refusal to acknowledge, let alone comply with, this ruling represents a flagrant disregard for its obligations under UNCLOS, which explicitly requires parties to abide by the decisions of its dispute settlement mechanisms. This stubbornness by a major power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council sets a deeply troubling precedent. If a nation can simply ignore binding international legal judgments it dislikes, the entire edifice of international law is weakened.
Militarization and Coercion: Undermining Regional Stability
Moreover, in parallel with its legal defiance, China has undertaken a massive campaign of island-building and militarisation in the South China Sea, transforming submerged reefs and low-tide elevations into substantial artificial islands equipped with airfields, radar systems, and missile emplacements. These actions, often accompanied by the coercive use of its coast guard and maritime militia to intimidate fishermen and naval vessels from other claimant states, fundamentally alter the strategic landscape. Indeed, such behavior violates the spirit of UNCLOS provisions concerning the peaceful uses of the seas and due regard for the rights of other states. Furthermore, this creeping militarization increases the risk of miscalculation and armed conflict, directly threatening regional peace and stability. It also puts immense pressure on smaller claimant states, effectively creating a "might make right" dynamic that UNCLOS was designed to prevent.
Freedom of Navigation and Economic Ramifications
Furthermore, the South China Sea is a critical conduit for international shipping, with an estimated one-third of global maritime trade, valued at trillions of dollars annually, transiting its waters. While China professes to uphold freedom of navigation, its expansive claims and assertive actions create an atmosphere of uncertainty and a potential challenge to these universally recognized rights. In addition, the prospect of a dominant power asserting de facto control over such vital sea lanes is a concern for all trading nations. Furthermore, the disputes over fishing rights and hydrocarbon resources, exacerbated by China's unilateral actions and disregard for UNCLOS-defined EEZs, deprive other littoral states of their rightful economic benefits and can lead to dangerous confrontations over access to these resources, as seen in repeated standoffs between Chinese vessels and those of Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
The Imperative of a United International Front
Finally, the challenge posed by China's actions in the South China Sea cannot be effectively addressed by the claimant states alone. It requires a broader, more unified international response grounded in the consistent affirmation of UNCLOS principles. Further, this involves not only diplomatic statements but also practical measures such as coordinated freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) by maritime powers, capacity-building support for Southeast Asian states to monitor and assert their maritime rights, and consistent pressure on Beijing in multilateral forums to bring its claims and conduct into conformity with international law. While individual nations may have complex bilateral relationships with China, the integrity of the global maritime legal order is a collective interest that must be prioritized. A failure to do so risks normalizing revisionist behavior and encouraging further challenges to the rules-based system elsewhere.
Join Sir Kazim’s Extensive CSS/PMS English Course Starting July 7
Sir Kazim's CSS/PMS English Essay & Precis course starts July 7 at 8 p.m. Only 60 seats; apply early! Submit a 200-word paragraph to secure your spot. Fee: Rs. 15,000/month.
Notably, it is essential to recognize that geopolitical realities are complex. China views the South China Sea through a lens of historical grievance, national rejuvenation, and strategic security, perceiving external involvement as interference. Furthermore, the enforcement mechanisms within UNCLOS are limited, relying heavily on state compliance and international pressure rather than a global maritime police force. Moreover, some argue that focusing solely on the legal dimension ignores China's legitimate security concerns or the need for pragmatic resource-sharing arrangements. However, while dialogue and de-escalation are crucial, they cannot come at the expense of fundamental legal principles that underpin global stability.
In conclusion, the South China Sea dispute is far more than a regional squabble over rocks and resources; it is a critical test case for the durability and efficacy of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and, by extension, the rules-based international order. China's persistent efforts to supplant UNCLOS with its own unilateral, historically-based claims, backed by growing military power, threaten to unravel decades of international legal progress. Additionally, upholding UNCLOS in the South China Sea is not merely about defending the rights of smaller claimant states; it is about safeguarding the predictability, stability, and peaceful use of the world's oceans for all nations. A firm, collective, and principled international stance, rooted in the unambiguous language of UNCLOS and the clear findings of the 2016 Arbitral Award, is essential to navigate these troubled waters towards a more lawful and secure maritime future.
