research paper on south china sea dispute

Interpreting the Arguments of China and the Philippines in the South China Sea Territorial Dispute: A Relevance-Theoretic Perspective

• Published: 19 August 2020
• Volume 35 , pages 519–564, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Justine Iscah F. Madrilejos 1 &
• Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9539-9688 2  

574 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The South China Sea territorial dispute has been a contentious issue in the international community. In the course of 3 years, China and the Philippines had undergone arbitral proceedings over the maritime rights and entitlements in the South China Sea. As the Permanent Court of Arbitration reached its decision, this paper aims to examine the interpretation process of the Arbitral Tribunal in the judgment of the South China Sea conflict between China and the Philippines. The primary objective of the study is to reconstruct or explain how the Tribunal came up with its interpretation of the written arguments presented by the parties involved and to distinguish whether such reconstruction the Tribunal has successfully interpreted or made sense of the said arguments and submissions. Doing so would necessitate a pragmatic analysis– the relevance-theoretic account of human communication and cognition. Data analyzed include written submissions and arguments as well as the legal documents used during the arbitral process. Using content analysis, the data were evaluated through applying the tool of interpretation based on the criteria set by the three conditions of the relevance theory: (1) logical condition, (2) pragmatic condition, and (3) condition of optimal relevance. This paper argues that in order for the addressee of an utterance, in this case the Arbitral Tribunal, to attain a successful interpretation, it should meet these three conditions. This study found that the reconstruction of the interpretation based on the three conditions showed that the Tribunal had attained a valid and correct interpretation of the Philippines’ and China’s arguments. Furthermore, the paper asserts that implied conclusion and the contextual assumptions can be a guiding principle for the cognitive comprehension or interpretation of legal texts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Under the Talking-Tree: Proverbs as Reasons. The Dialogical Articulaton of Proverbs Within the Baule Tradition

Transparency and Context in Legal Communication: Pragmatics and Legal Interpretation

Legal Text and Pragmatics: Semantic Battles or the Power of the Declarative in Specialized Discourse

Belotti, Ulisse. 2012. Dispute resolution narratives: A linguistic analysis of arbitration practices . Bergamo: CELSB Libreria Universitaria.

Google Scholar  

Permanent Court of Arbitration. 2016. South China Sea Arbitration Award. Retrieved July 18, 2016, from Cour Permanente D’Arbitrage: http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7 .

Gao, Zhiguo, and Bing Bing Jia. 2013. The nine-dash line in the South China Sea: History, status, and implications. American Journal of International Law 7(1): 98.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bocher, Sheri. 1987. Contract interpretation in arbitration. Employment Relations Today 14(2): 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.3910140211 .

Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus . New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bach, Kent. 2004. Minding the gap. In The semantics/pragmatics distinction , ed. C. Bianchi, 27–43. Stanford: CLSI.

Ogunsuji, Yemi, and R.O. Farinde. 2012. Pragmatics in foreign linguistics development for national re-orientation and transformation in Nigeria. British Journal of Arts and Sciences 2(7): 113–121.

Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3: 41–58.

Sadock, Jerrold. 2006. Speech acts. In The handbook of pragmatics , ed. L. Horn and G. Ward, 53–73. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Aldisert, Ruggero, Stephen Clowney, and Jeremy Peterson. 2007. Logic for law students: How to think like a lawyer. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 69: 1.

Atias, Sol. 2010. Semantically cued contextual implicatures in legal texts. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 728–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.009 .

Brumberg-Chaumont, Julie. 2015. Universal logic and Aristotelian logic: Formality and essence of logic. Logica Universalis 9(2): 253–278.

Lacock, Darrel. 1964. The relevance of logic to law , 13–23. MULL: Modern Uses of Logic in Law.

Smiley, Timothy. 1973. What is syllogism? Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(1): 136–154.

Stanley, Jason. 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(4): 391–434.

Borg, Emma, and Ernest Lepore. 2002. Symbolic logic and natural language. In A Companion to Philosophical Logic , 86–101. Oxford: Blackwell.

Carston, Robyn, and George Powell. 2009. Relevance theory—New directions and developments. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language , ed. E. Lepore and B. Smith, 341–360. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition , vol. 142. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, Dan, and Deirdre Sperber. 2006. Relevance theory. In The handbook of pragmatics , ed. L. Horn and G. Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.

Happé, Francesca. 1993. Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition 48(2): 101–119.

Diaz-Perez, Francisco. 2014. Relevance theory and translation: Translating puns in Spanish films into English. Journal of Pragmatics 70: 108–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.007 .

Bhatia, Vijay, Christopher Candlin, and John Engberg. 2008. Legal discourse across cultures and systems . Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Vijay, Bhatia, and Aditi Bhatia. 2011. Legal discourse across cultures and socio-pragmatic contexts. World Englishes 30(4): 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01727 .

Fraser, Henry. 1980. Sketch of the history of international arbitration. Cornell Law Review 11(2): 179–208.

Atias, Sol. 2016. Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency. Semeotica 90(9): 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0005 .

Carston, Robyn. 2004. Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In The handbook of pragmatics , ed. L. Horn and G. Ward, 633–656. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schmid, Hans-Jorg (ed.). 2012. Cognitive pragmatics , vol. 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Muñiz, Joaquin. 1997. Legal principles and legal theory. Ratio Juris 10(3): 267–287.

Daci, Jordan. 2010. Legal principles, legal values and legal norms: Are they the same or different? Academicus International Scientific Journal 02: 109–115.

Atias, Sol. 2011. On the incoherence of legal language to the general public. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24(1): 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9176-7 .

Keenan, Edward. 1973. Presupposition in natural logic. The Monist 57(3): 344–370. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197357314 .

Permanent Court of Arbitration. 2015. Award on jurisdiction and admissibility. Retrieved July 18, 2016, from Cour Permanente D’Arbitrage: http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7 .

Permanent Court of Arbitration. 2014. Procedural order no. 4. Retrieved November 8, 2016 from Cour Permanente D’Arbitrage: http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7 .

Aleven, Vincent. 2003. Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: a computational model and an intelligent learning environment. Artificial Intelligence 150(1–2): 183–237.

Capon, Trevor, and Giovanni Sartor. 2003. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 150(1–2): 97–143.

Zhang, Feng. 2016. South China Sea Arbitration Award: breathtaking (but counterproductive) [Web blog post]. Retrieved from http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/south-china-sea-arbitration-award-breathtaking-17004 .

Walton, Graham. 2008. Theory, research, and practice in library management 5: branding. Library Management 29(8/9): 770–776.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Civil Law, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, The Philippines

Justine Iscah F. Madrilejos

Faculty of Arts and Letters, Research Center for Social Sciences and Education, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, The Philippines

Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1.1 Appendix 1: The analysis of the Tribunal’s interpretation through logical condition

1.1.1 submission no. 1.

Explicature: China’s maritime in the South China Sea, like those of the Philippines, may not extend beyond those permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Translation to Logic:

where C, China; Sx, x is the maritime rights in the South China Sea; Uy, y is the maritime rights in the South China Sea permitted by the UNCLOS.

Tribunal’s interpretation: The Philippines reflects a dispute concerning the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea and the role of UNCLOS.

where Pp, the propositions of the Philippines; Sx, the source of maritime entitlements (x) in the South China Sea; Ur, the role of UNCLOS.

1.1.2 Submission No. 2

Explicature: China’s claims to sovereign rights and jurisdiction, and to “historic rights”, with respect to the maritime areas of the the South China Sea encompassed by the so-called “nine-dash line” are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under UNCLOS.

where C, China; h, “historic rights” claimed by China; U, UNCLOS; Mx, the lawful effect on the maritime entitlements under UNCLOS.

where Pp, the propositions of the Philippines; sx, the source of maritime entitlements (x) in the South China Sea; Ur, the role of UNCLOS.

1.1.3 Submission No. 3

Explicature: Scarborough Shoal [is a rock that] generates no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

where SS, Scarborough Shoal; ax, x involves generating entitlements to a; e, exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea; cs, continental shelf in the South China Sea.

Tribunal’s interpretation: The Submission is concerned with the status of Scarborough Shoal as an “island” or “rock” that are not capable of generating entitlements to maritime zones.

where SS, Scarborough Shoal; r, rocks; i, island; a x, x involves the capability to generate entitlements to a ; M, maritime zones.

1.1.4 Submission No. 4

Explicature: Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, and are not features that are capable of appropriation by occupation or otherwise.

where M, Mischief Reef; ST, Second Thomas Shoal; SR, Subi Reef; a x, x involves generating entitlements to a ; M, maritime zones; l, low-tide elevations.

Tribunal’s interpretation: Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlements.

where M, Mischief Reef; ST, Second Thomas Shoal; SR, Subi Reef; ax, x involves the capability to generate entitlements to a; M, maritime zones; l, low-tide elevations

1.1.5 Submission No. 5

Explicature: Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines.

where M, Mischief Reef; ST, Second Thomas Shoal; A e, exclusive economic zone of A ; A cs, continental shelf of A ; P, Philippines.

Tribunal’s interpretation: The Philippines asked a declaration from the Tribunal that Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal belongs to the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines.

1.1.6 Submission No. 6

Explicature: Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including Hughes Reef) are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, but their low-water line may be used to determine the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Namyit and Sin Cowe, respectively, is measured.

where G, Gaven Reef; MK, McKennan Reef; H, Hughes Reef; l, low-tide elevations; x, x is the capability of any natural substance to generate entitlements; t, territorial seas; e, exclusive economic zone; cs, continental shelf.

Tribunal’s interpretation: The Philippines’ Submission No. 6 is concerned with whether Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including Hughes Reef) are low-tide elevations “that do not generate an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

where G, Gaven Reef; MK, McKennan Reef; l, low-tide elevations; x, x is the capability of any natural substance to generate entitlements; t, territorial seas; cs, continental shelf; P, Philippines.

1.1.7 Submission No. 7

Explicature: Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef generate no entitlement to an economic zone or continental shelf.

where J, Johnson Reef; CR, Cuarteron Reef; F, Fiery Cross Reef; x, x is the capability of any natural substance to generate entitlements; e, exclusive economic zone; cs, continental shelf.

Tribunal’s interpretation: The Philippines’ Submission No. 7 reflects a dispute concerning the status of Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef as “islands” or “rocks” that do not generate entitlements to maritime zones.

where J, Gaven Reef; CR, Cuarteron Reef; F, Fiery Cross Reef; i, islands; r, rocks; A x, x is to generate entitlements to A ; M, marine zones.

1.1.8 Submission No. 8

Explicature: China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the sovereign rights of the Philippines with respect to the living and non-living resources of its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

where C, China; A a, actions done by A ; x, x is the occurrence of lawful and legal activities; P, Philippines; A s, sovereign rights of A ; lr, living resources; nlr, non-living resources.

Tribunal’s interpretation: The Philippines asks the Tribunals to consider China’s actions that allegedly interfere with the Philippines’ petroleum exploration, seismic surveys and fishing in what the Philippines claim as its exclusive economic zone.

where C, China; A a, actions done by A ; x, x is the lawful and legal activities; P, Philippines; A pe, A ’s petroleum exploration; A ss, A ’s seismic surveys; A f, A ’s fishing activities.

1.1.9 Submission No. 9

Explicature: China has unlawfully failed to prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting the living resources in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines.

where C, China; a, a involves the act of preventing an activity from occuring; A n, the nationals from A ; A v, the fishing vessels of A.

Tribunal’s interpretation: The Philippines’ Submission No. concerns China’s toleration of the unlawful fishing activities by Chinese vessels and nationals in the areas of the South China Sea that are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines.

1.1.10 Submission No. 10

Explicature: China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by interfering with traditional fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal.

where C, China; a, a involves the act of legally interfering; A f, the traditional fishing activity of A ; P, Philippine fishermen.

Tribunal’s interpretation: The Philippines requests the Tribunal to consider China’s action that allegedly interfere with the traditional fishing activities of Philippine nationals at Scarborough Shoal.

1.1.11 Submission No. 11

Explicature: China has violated its obligations under the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal.

where C, China; x, x is the act of protecting and preserving; A m, the marine environment of A ; SS, Scarborough Shoal; ST, Second Thomas Shoal.

Tribunal’s interpretation: The Philippines’ Submission No. 11 reflects a dispute concerning China’s protection and preservation of the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal.

1.1.12 Submission No. 12

Explicature: China’s occupation and construction activities on Mischief Reef:

violate the provisions of the Convention concerning artificial islands, installations and structures;

violate China’s duties to protect and preserve the marine environment under the Convention; and

constitute the unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in violation of the Convention

where C, China; M, Mischief Reef; A x, x involves the occupation and construction activities on A ; A m, the marine environment of A ; U, UNCLOS or the Convention; a, artificial islands; i, installations; s, structures; A y, denotes the protection and preservation of A ; z, involves the rules of the Convention.

Tribunal’s interpretation: The Philippines’ Submission No. 12 reflects a dispute concerning China’s activities on Mischief Reef and their effects on the marine environment.

where C, China; M, Mischief Reef; A x, x involves the activities on A ; m, the marine environment; A z, effects on the A.

1.1.13 Submission No. 13

Explicature: China has breached its obligations under the Convention by operating its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner causing serious risk of collision to Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal.

where C, China; a, a involves the activities within the laws of the Convention/UNCLOS; A s, the act of causing serious risk of collision to A ; P, Philippine vessels.

Tribunal’s interpretation: Chinese law enforcement vessels in the vicinity of the Scarborough Shoal created a serious risk of collision and danger to Philippines vessels and personnel.

where C, China; A l, law enforcement vessels of A ; a, involves the serious risk of collision and danger; P, Philippine; v, vessels; p, personnel.

1.1.14 Submission No. 14

Explicature: Since the commencement of this arbitration in January 2013, China has unlawfully aggravated and extended the dispute by, among other things:

interfering with the Philippines’ rights of navigation in the waters at, and adjacent to, Second Thomas Shoal;

preventing the rotation and resupply of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal; and

endangering the health and well-being of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal

where C, China; a, aggravated and extended the dispute; A x, interfering with A ’s rights of navigation in the water at Second Thomas Shoal; A y, rotation and resupply of A ; A p, A ’s personnel; A z, danger on the health and well-being of A ; P, Philippine.

where C, China; A a, activities of A ; A i, interaction of A ; P, Philippine; A m, A ’s military force.

1.1.15 Submission No. 15

Explicature: China shall desist from further unlawful claims and activities.

where C, China; x, x denotes continuity of certain acts; u, unlawful claims; a, activities.

Tribunal’s interpretation: The Philippines requests a declaration from the Tribunal that China shall do what it is already obliged by the Convention to do.

where T, Tribunal; A d, A’ s declaration; A x, rules/obligations set out by A ; C, China; U, UNCLOS/Convention.

1.1.16 China’s first argument (C1)

Explicature : First, the essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the UNCLOS.

where A, Arbitration; A a, arguments in A ; tm, territorial rights over maritime features; S, South China Sea; U, UNCLOS.

1.1.17 Tribunal’s interpretation of C1

Explicature : China’s objection concerns the link between sovereignty and the Philippines’ claim.

where C, China; A o, objection of A ; S, sovereignty; A c, A’ s claim; P, Philippines.

1.1.18 China’s second argument (C2)

Explicature : Second, even assuming some of the claims were concerned with the interpretation and application of the UNCLOS, they would still be an integral part of maritime delimitation, which has been excluded by China through its 2006 Declaration and consequently is not subject to compulsory arbitration.

where c, claims of the Philippines; m, maritime delimitation; C, China.

1.1.19 Tribunal’s interpretation of C2

Explicature : China’s objection concerns the link between maritime delimitation and the Philippines’ claim.

where C, China; A o, objection of A ; m, maritime delimitation; A c, A’ s claim; P, Philippines.

1.1.20 China’s third argument (C3)

Explicature : Third, given that China and the Philippines have agreed to settle their disputes in the South China Sea through negotiation, the Philippines is precluded from initiating arbitration unilaterally.

where C, China; P, Philippines; n, negotiation; a, arbitration.

1.1.21 Tribunal’s interpretation of C3

Explicature : China’s objection concerns the effect of the Joint Statement of the Philippines and China.

where C, China; A o, objection of A ; e, effect; J, Joint Statement; P, Philippines.

1.1.22 China’s fourth argument (C4)

Explicature : Fourth, the Philippines failed to fulfill the obligation of exchanging views with China on the means of dispute settlement.

where P, Philippines; o, obligation; d, dispute settlement.

1.1.23 Tribunal’s interpretation of C4

Explicature : The Parties’ exchange of views on the settlement of the dispute prior to the commencement of the arbitration.

where C, China; v, views; d, settlement dispute; P, Philippines.

1.1.24 China’s fifth argument (C5)

Explicature : The Philippines’ initiation of the arbitration is a typical abuse of compulsory arbitral procedures stipulated in the UNCLOS.

where P, Philippines; i, initiation for arbitration; a, abuse; U, arbitral procedures by UNCLOS.

1.1.25 Tribunal’s interpretation of C5

Explicature : The appropriateness of the Philippines’ recourse to arbitration.

where C, China; A o, objection of A ; a, appropriateness; P, Philippines; r, recourse to arbitration.

1.2 Appendix 2: The analysis of the Tribunal’s interpretation and decision through the pragmatic condition

1.3 appendix 3: the analysis of the tribunal’s interpretation through logical condition, 1.3.1 submission no. 1, 1.3.2 submission no. 2, 1.3.3 submission no. 3, 1.3.4 submission no. 4.

where M, Mischief Reef; ST, Second Thomas Shoal; SR, Subi Reef; ax, x involves the capability to generate entitlements to a; M, maritime zones; l, low-tide elevations.

1.3.5 Submission No. 5

1.3.6 submission no. 6, 1.3.7 submission no. 7, 1.3.8 submission no. 8, 1.3.9 submission no. 9, 1.3.10 submission no. 10, 1.3.11 submission no. 11, 1.3.12 submission no. 12, 1.3.13 submission no. 13, 1.3.14 submission no. 14, 1.3.15 submission no. 15, 1.3.16 china’s first argument.

where A, Arbitration; A a arguments in A ; tm, territorial rights over maritime features; S, South China Sea; U, UNCLOS.

1.3.17 Tribunal’s interpretation of C1

Translation to Logic :

1.3.18 China’s second argument

1.3.19 tribunal’s interpretation of c2, 1.3.20 china’s third argument, 1.3.21 tribunal’s interpretation of c3, 1.3.22 china’s fourth argument, 1.3.23 tribunal’s interpretation of c4, 1.3.24 china’s fifth argument, 1.3.25 tribunal’s interpretation of c5, 1.4 appendix 4: the analysis of the tribunal’s interpretation and decision through the pragmatic condition, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Madrilejos, J.I.F., Ballesteros-Lintao, R. Interpreting the Arguments of China and the Philippines in the South China Sea Territorial Dispute: A Relevance-Theoretic Perspective. Int J Semiot Law 35 , 519–564 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09770-1

Download citation

Published : 19 August 2020

Issue Date : April 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09770-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• South China Sea
• Legal interpretation
• Relevance theory
• Tool of interpretation
• Forensic linguistics
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Territorial Disputes: The South China Sea: Reports and Documents

• Electronic Resources
• State Interests
• Reports and Documents
• Treaties and Agreements

Congressional Documents

• America's Security Role in the South China Sea Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Thursday, July 23, 2015.
• China as an Emerging Power in the South China Sea Congressional hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 112 Cong., 2d sess., 12 September 2012
• China’s Actions in South and East China Seas: Implications for U.S. Interests—Background and Issues for Congress CRS Report, August 2018.
• Diplomacy and Security in the South China Sea: After the Tribunal Serial No. 114-232: Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Thursday, September 22, 2016.
• Investigating the Chinese Threat, PART I: Military and Economic Aggression Hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 112th Cong., 2d sess., 28 March 2012
• Maritime Disputes and Sovereignty Issues in East Asia Hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 111th Cong., 1st sess., 15 July 2009
• Reaffirming the Strong Support of the United States for the 2002 Declaration of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea among the Member States of ASEAN and the People’s Republic of China, and for Other Purposes. 112th Congress, 2d session, S. Res. 524, 23 July 2012
• Seapower and Projection Forces in the South China Sea Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces. Wednesday, September 21, 2016.
• To Promote Peaceful and Collaborative Resolution of Maritime Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea and Its Environs and Other Maritime Areas Adjacent to the East Asian Mainland H. R. 6313, 2 August 2012
• U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission: Annual Reports to Congress
• U.S. Policy in the South China Sea Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific and International Cybersecurity Policy. Wednesday, July 13, 2016.
• 6th ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM), in Phnom Penh, on 29 May 2012 May 2012
• Armed Clash in the South China Sea Bonnie S. Glaser, Council on Foreign Relations, Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 14
• Asian Diplomatic Ambiguity – Calming the South China Sea Alan Chong and Emrys Chew, RSIS Commentaries no. 78, 3 May 2012
• A Balanced Threat Assessment of China’s South China Sea Policy Benjamin Herscovitch, CATO Institute Policy Analysis, no. 820, 2017
• Breaking Up Is Hard To Do: ASEAN and the South China Sea Alan Chong and Emrys Chew, RSIS Commentaries no. 214, November 2012 Link to the bibliographic record: https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/gpo/co12214/#.Xr7bO2hKiUk
• By Invitation, Mostly: The International Politics of the US Security Presence, China, and the South China Sea Christopher Freise, RSIS Working Paper No. 247, August 2012
• China's Attitude to the International Legal Order in the Xi Era: The Case of the South China Sea Bing Ling, Japan Institute if International Affairs, Policy Brief no. 4, 2018.
• China and the South China Sea: Two Faces of Power in the Rising China’s Neighborhood Policy more... less... Erik Beukel, DIIS Working Paper, July 2010
• Defusing the South China Sea Disputes CSIS Report, October 2018.
• FPI Bulletin: Next Steps in the South China Sea Christopher J. Griffin, The Foreign Policy Initiative, 20 July 2016.
• Power and Order in the South China Sea Dr. Patrick M. Cronin, Center for a New American Security, November 2016.
• Rethinking Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea: Transforming Problem into Opportunity Dato’ Muthiah Alagappa, RSIS Commentaries no. 166, 5 September 2012
• The South China Sea: A Breeding Ground for Geopolitical Rivalry DIIS Report, 2016
• South China Sea: From Bad to Worse? Joshua Kurlantzick, Council on Foreign Relations, 24 July 2012
• South China Sea Dispute: Evolution, Conflict Management and Resolution Lalita Boonpriwan, 2nd International Conference on International Relations and Development, 26-27 July 2012
• South China Sea Disputes: How States Can Clarify Their Maritime Claims Robert Beckman, RSIS Commentaries no. 140, 31 July 2012
• The South China Sea Disputes: The Energy Dimensions Dr. Frank Umbach. ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International Security. issue 494, July 2017 The Institute for Strategic, Political, Security and Economic Consultancy (ISPSW)
• The South China Sea – Some Fundamental Strategic Principles Amy Searight, Center for Strategic & International Studies, January 2017.
• Time to End Strategic Ambiguity in the South China Sea Gregory Poling, Center for Strategic & International Studies, vol. III, iss. 13, 5 July 2012
• Toward a Code of Conduct for the South China Sea Rodolfo Severino, EAST ASIA FORUM, 11 August 2012
• << Previous: State Interests
• Next: Treaties and Agreements >>
• Last Updated: Feb 21, 2024 9:15 AM
• URL: https://usnwc.libguides.com/SouthChinaSea

CUNY Academic Works

• < Previous

Home > City College > Dissertations and Theses > 344

Dissertations and Theses

An analysis of the south china sea dispute: focusing on the assessment of the impact of possible solutions on the economies of the region..

Sacha Amry , CUNY City College

Date of Award

Document type.

International Relations

First Advisor

Jean Krasno

Cina, Asean, UNCLOS

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the South China Sea dispute and to analyze why the dispute has yet to escalate, as well as the strategic importance of the South China Sea dispute in relation to international trade. This thesis will also study possible solutions and effects on both the region and the international community. I argue here that while the ASEAN countries have continued to make valuable efforts at finding multilateral solutions to the dispute, China has resisted these efforts by demanding its own bilateral negotiation process. The Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands, both located in the South China Sea, has become an obstacle to creating multilateral security in the region. The question of who owns the Spratly Islands, which are scattered throughout an 800 square kilometer area, was largely ignored until the 1970s when oil companies began exploring the area. Therefore, sporadic military confrontations over sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction have taken place. China, Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei claim parts or all of the aforementioned islands; thus, the Spratly and the Paracel Islands have become an important flashpoint in the dispute.

The primary concern of the South China dispute lies at China’s “tongue-like nine dashed lines” that is construed through the South China Sea, in areas where several other countries dispute their claims. With this in mind, China’s perspective requires a more in-depth analysis. ASEAN member states have informally adopted their own way of managing conflict in what is known as the “ASEAN Way” which is a style that is informal and personal where policymakers constantly utilize compromise, consensus, and consultation. Due to the complexity of the South China Sea dispute, negotiations have been lagging since the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea excludes rocks incapable of sustaining human habitation as stated in Article 121. Rocks, which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own, shall have no exclusive zone or continental shelf. All of the claimant countries of the South China Sea dispute are signatories to the UN Law of the Sea Convention, which created guidelines concerning the status of the islands, the continental shelf, enclosed seas, and territorial limits with the exclusivity of an economic zone within the South China Sea dispute. Therefore, following the Convention’s dispute mechanism may allow and assist in resolving the dispute between the claimant countries.

Recommended Citation

Amry, Sacha, "An Analysis of the South China Sea Dispute: Focusing on the Assessment of the Impact of Possible Solutions on the Economies of the Region." (2015). CUNY Academic Works. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cc_etds_theses/344

Included in

International Relations Commons

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately, you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.

• Colleges, Schools, Centers
• Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Author Corner

• Submission Policies
• Submit Work
• City College of New York

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

The South China Sea dispute

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• China's foreign and defense policies Follow Following
• International Security Follow Following
• South China Sea Follow Following
• Maritime Security Follow Following
• The Moros Of Mindanao In Southern Philippines Follow Following
• History from Below Follow Following
• Jihad Follow Following
• Regional Integration Follow Following
• Political Violence and Terrorism Follow Following
• Philippine Revolution Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Keeping the South China Sea in Perspective

Subscribe to the china bulletin, jeffrey a. bader , jeffrey a. bader senior fellow - foreign policy , john l. thornton china center kenneth g. lieberthal , and kenneth g. lieberthal senior fellow emeritus - foreign policy michael mcdevitt mm michael mcdevitt senior fellow, strategic studies, cna analysis & solutions; rear admiral, united states navy (ret.).

September 2, 2014

In the Brookings Foreign Policy Brief, “ Keeping the South China Sea in Perspective,” Jeffrey Bader, Kenneth Lieberthal and Michael McDevitt outline steps the United States can take to pursue U.S. interests in the South China Sea and mitigate current disputes. Read the overview below and download the full brief for detailed analysis and a complete list of recommendations.

The United States seeks to promote Asia-Pacific economic interdependence and dynamism and to mitigate security tensions in the region. Unfortunately, maritime territorial disputes in the East China Sea and the South China Sea increasingly threaten these dual objectives of U.S.-Asia policy. This policy brief focuses on the South China Sea set of issues.

Complex Rivalries and Claims in the South China Sea

The South China Sea disputes pit China against five other claimants—the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan, many of which have maritime territorial claims that also overlap with each other—and involve a potent mix of:

• Highly emotional territorial claims in a region of rising nationalism. • Risks of accidental conflict that could escalate. • Conflicting claims to potentially rich resources. • Risks to freedom of navigation in exclusive economic zones (EEZs). • Disputes over the interpretation and applicability of international law, notably the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

U.S. Principles and Interests

At the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum meeting in Hanoi in July 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laid out the principles guiding the U.S. government’s policy toward the South China Sea. A positive U.S. role in the South China Sea is possible building on the principles that Secretary Clinton enunciated in 2010, but only if the implementing diplomatic strategy is forward-looking, comprehensive, disciplined and sound.

Recommendations for a Diplomatic Strategy

The United States should:

• Reiterate its insistence on freedom of navigation and overflight, including in EEZs, for military as well as civilian ships and planes, and act accordingly if challenged. • Focus its diplomatic strategy on persuading the ASEAN countries and China to:

◦ Adhere to UNCLOS criteria to delineate all South China Sea maritime rights as determined by the relevant land features; and ◦ Negotiate a Code of Conduct that codifies agreed rules, procedures and regulations.

• Ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. • Call on Beijing to clarify its position on the “nine dash line” consistent with the relevant provisions of UNCLOS. Press Taiwan to provide a similar clarification. • Be very disciplined in defining the key interests that it would, if necessary, use force to back up. • Call out all countries, not only China, when they take actions or make threats that violate the spirit of the Declaration of Conduct in the South China Sea. • Overall, lower the temperature of official public commentary.

Foreign Policy

China South Asia Taiwan

John L. Thornton China Center

Witney Schneidman

April 17, 2024

Vanda Felbab-Brown

April 16, 2024

Michael E. O’Hanlon, Ivan Kanapathy, Rorry Daniels, Thomas Hanson, Ryan Hass, Patricia M. Kim, Emilie Kimball

South China Sea: Why are China and Philippines tensions heating up?

• Medium Text

WHAT ARE THE FLASHPOINTS?

WHY ARE THINGS HEATING UP?

What have the standoffs entailed, what was the global reaction, how is the philippines responding, could the united states get involved.

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

Reporting by Karen Lema; Editing by Martin Petty, Heather Timmons and Shri Navaratnam

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

EU leaders back new Iran sanctions after attack on Israel

European Union leaders decided on Wednesday to step up sanctions against Iran after Tehran's missile and drone attack on Israel left world powers scrambling to prevent a wider conflict in the Middle East.