The South China Sea is a crucial maritime passage connecting the Pacific and Indian Oceans: its strategic location for maritime roads, the vast quantity of resources that comes with it, and the overlapping territorial claims among coastal states, such as China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan, have made the territory one of the most unsettled geopolitical conflicts of modern times. Its significance goes beyond territorial dispute, rooted in economic and power supremacy: as it is a maritime corridor for international trade, from which over one-third of global shipping crosses its waters, whoever controls it would be able to shape the global economy, and acquire therefore political leverage on nearby states and more. While diplomatic efforts and international law seek to maintain order, regional stability seems uncertain.
The South China Sea Dispute has very old roots: ancient Chinese dynasties claimed sovereignty over most of the sea, asserting historical rights based on ancient maps and records. To this day, China affirms its natural right over the corridor, and to impose its presence, it has started a series of construction activities, particularly by transforming several strategic spots into military bases. The shared feeling of fear toward the Chinese armament of common areas, and the unjust claims of Beijing, have created a strong opposition of the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN). The Philippines and Vietnam have sought legal and diplomatic countermeasures through the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, which invalidated China’s claims. Malaysia and Brunei opposed Beijing by also affirming their territorial claims on the Sea, nonetheless, they agreed on the importance of adherence to international law.
However, despite the Court’s decision to reject Chinese claims on the Sea, Beijing has largely ignored the ruling, continuing its island-building and military expansion in the region. Lately, it has also opted for a more aggressive approach: recent laws allowing China’s coast guard to use force against intruders further raise concerns about a potential military escalation.
Moreover, ASEAN faces difficulties in presenting a united front against China’s actions. While some member states, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, advocate for stronger pushback, others, like Cambodia and Laos, maintain close ties with Beijing and resist collective condemnation. This division weakens ASEAN’s ability to mediate the dispute effectively, nevertheless, a Code of Conduct (COC) between ASEAN and China to manage tensions and prevent conflicts has been negotiated, reflecting the intention, although slow, of reaching a peaceful resolution and following international law on maritime environments.
The maritime dispute has also become a hot topic in the Sino-American rivalry: despite having no rights on the territory, the US still considers it vital for its economic interests. For instance, through freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) and defence agreements with regional allies like the Philippines, Washington has repeatedly shown its commitment to countering China’s dominance. This could raise the risk of escalation of violence over the control of the Sea, and, if the US pushes to mediate the situation between ASEAN and China, its involvement might make diplomatic efforts vain because of unbiased agreements and national interests behind it.
While regional tensions continue to rise, the escalation to war is not inevitable. Diplomatic efforts, such as the negotiation for a Code of Conduct between ASEAN and China, could be the road to ensuring shared and fair usage of the sea. However, without enforceable mechanisms, there is little guarantee that China or any claimant state will adhere to the agreed terms. So considering that the South China Sea is more than just a sea, it is a critical global trade route, a source of vast natural resources, and a strategic military hotspot, its importance might lead to serious consequences soon if China doesn’t put aside its interests.
By The European Institute for International Relations
