Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


The Legal Underpinnings of the South China Sea Dispute: Could Partnerships Be Biden’s Answer to the Conflict?

4/23/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Lyndsey Reeve
Lyndsey Reeve is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania studying International Relations.
​

Controlling the South China Sea is an imperative for actors in the Indo-Pacific. Hotly contested for decades due to its economic and geopolitical importance, the region is home to fierce displays of military might (so-called “gunboat diplomacy”). Under the surface, however, lies a complex, decades-old legal battle. To defend the rule of law, American policymakers must build stronger partnerships in the region and foster alternatives that promote economic growth without authoritarian control.

The South China Sea is a trade lifeline, transporting roughly a third of worldwide shipping [1]. The region acts as a new Silk Road, facilitating exportation of Chinese infrastructure to less developed countries, thus supporting its rise to Eurasian dominance. 

China’s basis for controlling the region is historical, not legal. Historically, the Chinese empire had a tributary system, bolstering its influence by permitting nearby nations to self-govern as long as they submitted to the Chinese emperor and gave him gifts. Beijing cites a 1949 map (later modified in 1962 after China ceded the Gulf of Tonkin), that created a “nine-dash line,” granting China substantial territories including the Paracel Islands and Spratly Island [2].

In domestic law, China uses intentionally ambiguous language that expands Chinese control over the disputed territories, describing “indisputable sovereignty” over “adjacent” and “relevant waters,” neither of which are defined in international law. These phrases, albeit vague, lend domestic credence to China’s control and circumvent the issues more specific claims would have in international court [3]. 

However, according to the 1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a convention constructed to address maritime disputes, countries only have sovereign claim to waters within twelve miles of their territories. Although Beijing is party to this convention, it claims an unlawful 200 mile “exclusive economic zone,” or EEZ, granting it control of vast natural resources [4]. Furthermore, according to a 2016 suit in the Permanent Court of Arbitration levied by the Phillipines against the People’s Republic of China, China’s rights to the region “were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the convention” [5]. However, this decision lacks an enforcement mechanism. 

ASEAN, or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, is looking to change that. This group—which includes the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Brunei—has attempted to draft a regional Code of Conduct (COC) with China. 


Resolving this dispute regionally may appeal to Beijing to avoid concerns of undue influence by foreign non-claimants (like the U.S.), but little progress has been made. A regional economic powerhouse, China hopes to retain its sovereignty, and a binding COC could challenge that. Disagreement on dispute settlement mechanisms and conflict management have also emerged, and differences among ASEAN powers have hindered unity [6]. 

In the past twenty-five years, American policy has shifted dramatically from concern regarding trade implications to outright condemnation of the PRC for exploiting neighboring states. In 1995, the U.S. focus in the South China Sea was simply preserving stability and peace. American policymakers “[took] no position on the legal merits of the competing claims to sovereignty over the various islands, reefs, atolls, and cays in the South China Sea,” only voicing concerns regarding potential trade restrictions [7]. The Obama administration backed UNCLOS and endorsed the Philippines' right to take China to international arbitration, but “couched its responses in careful legalese” to avoid confrontation [8]. 

During the Trump administration, Secretary of State Pompeo took a more hard-line approach, openly accusing the PRC of glaring violations of international law in the area. Drawing on universal Lockean principles of state sovereignty, Pompeo called Beijing a “bully” with “predatory world view” designed to corral relatively weak coastal states in Southeast Asia [9]. This shift is likely heightened by other ideological grievances, such as broader distaste with China’s rise as an economic rival and human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

This new American attitude toward the PRC’s illegal territorial ambitions is a rare continuity between the Trump and Biden administrations. President Biden has focused on partnerships  to counter China’s military posturing in the region, particularly promising to bolster the U.S. alliance with Japan. Secretary of State Blinken has also openly rejected China’s claims to the region, saying they surpass maritime zones allowed under international law. [10]

Undermining these claims will play a huge role in confronting what geopolitical expert Parag Khana calls the “infrastructure arms race” [11]. If the U.S. wants to win this economic stand-off for global influence, the Biden administration must support infrastructure and industrialization, partnering with vulnerable countries susceptible to China’s influence. 

Freedom of navigation exercises in the regions symbolize an enduring military commitment to defending open seas, but China’s unlawful claims to the South China Sea are a symptom of an effort that spans economic, military, and human rights arenas. Thus, promoting democratization and defending the free world’s rule of law will demand more than militarism. Instead, the U.S. should recommit to assisting countries on the verge of autonomy, supporting their independence, perhaps via privatization of industry and alternative “Silk Roads.”

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

[1] “How Much Trade Transits the South China Sea?” China Power Project. Center for Strategic and International Studies , August 26, 2020. https://chinapower.csis.org/much-trade-transits-south-china-sea/. 
[2] Taoqeer, Hamzah. “South China Sea Dispute: In Light of International Law of the Seas.” Modern Diplomacy. Modern Diplomacy, August 18, 2020. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2020/08/19/south-china-sea-dispute-in-light-of-international-law-of-the-seas/. 
[3] Lohschelder, Sarah. “Chinese Domestic Law in the South China Sea.” Chinese Domestic Law in the South China Sea | Center for Strategic and International Studies. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Accessed March 22, 2021. https://www.csis.org/npfp/chinese-domestic-law-south-china-sea. 
[4] Costlow, Matthew R. “Gunboat Diplomacy in the South China Sea.” USAFA. USAFA, 2012. https://www.usafa.edu/app/uploads/Costlow-South-China-Sea-22-Jan-2013.pdf. 
[5] “THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION (THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA).” Press Release. https://docs.pca-cpa.org/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Press-Release-No-11-English.pdf, July 12, 2016. 
[6] Nguyen Minh Quang for The Diplomat. “Saving the China-ASEAN South China Sea Code of Conduct.” – The Diplomat. for The Diplomat, June 28, 2019. https://thediplomat.com/2019/06/saving-the-china-asean-south-china-sea-code-of-conduct/. 
[7] McDevitt, Michael. “The South China Sea: Assessing U.S. Policy and Options for the Future.” CNA. CNA, November 2014. https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/iop-2014-u-009109.pdf. 
[8] “How Significant Is the New U.S. South China Sea Policy?” How Significant Is the New U.S. South China Sea Policy? | Center for Strategic and International Studies. CSIS, December 3, 2020. https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-significant-new-us-south-china-sea-policy. 
[9] Pompeo, Mike. “U.S. Position on Maritime Claims in the South China Sea - United States Department of State.” U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, December 1, 2020. https://www.state.gov/u-s-position-on-maritime-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/. 
[10] McCurry, Justin. “US Takes Aim at China Territorial Claims as Biden Vows to Back Japan.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, January 28, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/28/us-takes-aim-at-china-territorial-claims-as-biden-vows-to-back-japan. 
[11] Khanna, Parag “Will All Roads Lead to China? - FPRI Events.” Foreign Policy Research Institute, September 11, 2020. https://www.fpri.org/event/2020/will-all-roads-lead-to-china/. 

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Aaron Tsui
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alexandra Kerrigan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Amanda Damayanti
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Arshiya Pant
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Catherine Tang
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Jewell
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabrielle Cohen
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Hannah Steinberg
    Harshit Rai
    Hennessis Umacta
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Ingrid Holmquist
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Khlood Awan
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyan Casamalhuapa
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Michael Merolla
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nathan Liu
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nicole Patel
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Paula Vekker
    Pheby Liu
    Pragat Patel
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Samantha Graines
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Tyler Ringhofer
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.