THE EFFICACY OF THE RULE OF LAW

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE WITH CHINA

POSITION PAPER
PHILOSOPHY OF LAW
Chapter 1: Introduction

The South China Sea dispute is one of the most complex and contentious territorial
issues in modern geopolitics, involving overlapping claims by multiple nations, including
the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and China. This maritime region, located at
the crossroads of Southeast Asia, has become a flashpoint for conflict due to its
economic potential, strategic significance, and the competing assertions of sovereignty
among the claimant states (Council on Foreign Relations, 2024). Central to the dispute
is China’s expansive "nine-dash line," an ambiguous demarcation that covers nearly the
entire South China Sea. This claim not only encroaches on the exclusive economic
zones (EEZs) of several neighboring countries but also challenges international norms
established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The result is a volatile and multifaceted conflict that has attracted significant global
attention and involvement, particularly from major powers like the United States, which
advocates for freedom of navigation in the region (U.S.-China Economic and Security
Review Commission, n.d.).

The economic value of the South China Sea cannot be overstated. It is believed to be
abundant in natural resources, including an estimated 11 billion barrels of oil and 190
trillion cubic feet of natural gas, making it a critical area for energy security in Asia (U.S.
Energy Information Administration, 2013). Additionally, the region’s fisheries are among
the most productive in the world, providing food and livelihoods to millions of people in
Southeast Asia (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2018). The economic stakes are
further elevated by the South China Sea’s role as a vital trade artery. Approximately
one-third of global shipping, with an annual value exceeding $3 trillion, passes through
these waters, connecting the economies of Asia, Europe, and the Americas (Britannica,
n.d.). For the claimant states, control over the South China Sea is not merely a matter of
asserting territorial sovereignty but also a means to secure economic resources and
maintain their national development trajectories.

Strategically, the South China Sea is a linchpin in global geopolitics. Its location makes
it a critical maritime route for military and commercial vessels, and its control has the
potential to shift the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region. For China, dominance
over the South China Sea aligns with its broader geopolitical ambitions to assert itself
as a regional hegemon and challenge the influence of the United States and its allies
(Council on Foreign Relations, 2024). This has led to the militarization of the region,
with China constructing artificial islands, equipping them with runways, missile systems,
and military facilities (Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, 2024). These actions have
heightened tensions not only with Southeast Asian nations but also with global powers
that view freedom of navigation in the South China Sea as a cornerstone of international
maritime law and security.

The legal dimension of the dispute came to a head in 2016, when an Arbitral Tribunal
under UNCLOS issued a landmark ruling. The Tribunal concluded that China’s claims
under the "nine-dash line" had no legal basis and affirmed the sovereign rights of the
Philippines within its EEZ (Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2016). This decision was
widely seen as a victory for the Philippines and the rule of law. However, China has
steadfastly refused to recognize the ruling, labeling it "null and void" and continuing its
activities in the disputed waters (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of
China, 2016). Despite diplomatic efforts by the Philippines and other Southeast Asian
nations, China’s aggressive stance has persisted, characterized by naval patrols,
harassment of foreign vessels, and the construction of structures on disputed reefs and
islands. These actions not only violate international law but also escalate tensions,
undermining efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully (U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission, n.d.).

The dispute has broader implications for international relations and regional stability. For
Southeast Asian countries, the South China Sea represents a test of their unity and
ability to collectively address external threats. The Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) has attempted to mediate the dispute, but its efforts have been
hampered by internal divisions and the economic influence of China over some member
states (Thayer, 2018). Meanwhile, external actors such as the United States, Japan,
and Australia have increased their involvement, conducting freedom of navigation
operations (FONOPs) and deepening security partnerships with Southeast Asian
nations (Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, 2024). These interventions underscore
the global significance of the South China Sea, as its fate will likely determine the future
of the international order in the Indo-Pacific.

The environmental consequences of the dispute also merit attention. China’s

island-building activities have caused significant damage to coral reefs and marine
ecosystems, threatening biodiversity and undermining the livelihoods of communities
that depend on fishing (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2023). The
militarization of the region further exacerbates environmental degradation, as artificial
islands disrupt natural habitats and increase the risk of conflict-related ecological
disasters (Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, 2024). The environmental toll of the
dispute highlights the need for sustainable management of the South China Sea’s
resources, a goal that remains elusive amid the ongoing territorial and geopolitical
contest.

The South China Sea dispute ultimately exemplifies the intersection of international law,
economic interests, and power dynamics in the modern world. Its resolution—or lack
thereof—will not only impact the countries directly involved but also shape the broader
balance of power in Asia and the global order. As China continues to assert its
dominance and other claimant states seek to defend their rights, the South China Sea
remains a hotspot for conflict, diplomacy, and negotiation. Achieving a lasting resolution
will require not only adherence to international law but also meaningful cooperation
among regional and global stakeholders—a prospect that remains uncertain in the face
of competing interests and entrenched rivalries.

The dispute has led to increased militarization, with China fortifying artificial islands in
the Spratly and Paracel archipelagos and deploying advanced weaponry. This
militarization has heightened tensions with other claimant states, including Vietnam and
the Philippines, and drawn international attention, particularly from the United States,
which has conducted freedom of navigation operations to challenge China's maritime
claims. The economic repercussions of the dispute are also significant, with fishing
communities facing disruptions and regional trade being jeopardized by the ongoing
tensions (Al Jazeera, 2024; Ratcliffe, 2024).

The militarization of the South China Sea has also led to an arms race in the region, as
neighboring states seek to modernize their naval and air capabilities in response to
China’s growing military presence. For instance, Vietnam has significantly upgraded its
naval forces, and the Philippines has pursued closer defense ties with the United States
and other allies. These developments have further complicated the security landscape,
with the potential for miscalculation or accidental clashes increasing significantly. The
situation underscores the urgent need for robust mechanisms to manage tensions and
prevent conflict escalation (Crisis Group, 2024).

From a legal perspective, the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling under UNCLOS marked a
pivotal moment in the South China Sea dispute. The ruling clarified key issues, such as
the status of maritime features and the rights of states within their exclusive economic
zones. However, its impact has been limited by the lack of an enforcement mechanism.
While international law relies on state compliance and diplomatic pressure, these tools
have proven inadequate in compelling China to adhere to the ruling. This highlights a
broader challenge in the international legal system: the inability to enforce judgments
against powerful states that choose to act unilaterally (U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission, 2016).

The dispute has also exposed the limitations of regional mechanisms, such as the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). While ASEAN has sought to play a
mediating role through initiatives like the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the
South China Sea (DOC), progress has been slow, and the group’s consensus-based
decision-making process has often hindered decisive action. Efforts to establish a
binding Code of Conduct (COC) have been ongoing for years but remain unresolved,
reflecting the complexities of balancing the interests of claimant states and external
powers (Kenny, 2024).
The South China Sea dispute also raises important questions about the role of great
powers in upholding the rule of law. While the United States has criticized China’s
actions and emphasized the importance of a rules-based international order, its own
actions have sometimes been perceived as inconsistent with this principle. For
example, the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS, despite using it as a basis to challenge
China’s claims. This undermines the credibility of U.S. advocacy for the rule of law in the
South China Sea and highlights the need for a more consistent approach to
international legal norms (Council on Foreign Relations, 2024).

Beyond the immediate stakeholders, the South China Sea dispute has broader
implications for global governance and the future of international law. The failure to
resolve the dispute peacefully could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other
states to pursue unilateral actions in defiance of international norms. This would
undermine the rule of law and weaken the international legal order, making it more
difficult to address other global challenges, such as climate change and transnational
crime. Ensuring compliance with international legal frameworks is therefore essential
not only for the South China Sea but also for the stability of the broader international
system.

Ultimately, the South China Sea dispute underscores the complex interplay between
power politics and the rule of law. While legal frameworks like UNCLOS provide a
foundation for resolving disputes, their efficacy depends on the willingness of states to
comply with their obligations and the ability of the international community to enforce
them. This paper aims to explore these issues in greater detail, examining the
challenges and opportunities associated with strengthening the rule of law in the context
of the South China Sea dispute.

​
Chapter 2: The Rule of Law and Its Framework

The rule of law is a cornerstone of international order, serving as a guiding principle that
ensures the fair application of legal standards to all states regardless of their power,
resources, or political influence. This principle underpins the framework for resolving
disputes peacefully, as opposed to through force or unilateral actions. By promoting
predictability and justice, the rule of law ensures that international relations are
governed by mutually agreed-upon norms, rather than the arbitrary exercise of power.
This is particularly relevant in the South China Sea dispute, where competing territorial
and maritime claims have created a flashpoint in international relations. Legal
frameworks such as UNCLOS offer a vital alternative to militarization and coercion,
setting the foundation for peaceful resolution (Thirlway, 2019).

At its core, the rule of law is rooted in equality and impartiality, requiring that all states
adhere to the same set of legal norms. This principle is especially significant in disputes
involving states with vastly different levels of power. For example, in the South China
Sea, smaller nations such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei face the
daunting challenge of countering China, a major global power with significant military
and economic capabilities. The rule of law, as embodied in instruments like UNCLOS,
levels the playing field by providing these smaller states with legal tools to assert their
rights and contest overreach by more powerful nations. Without this framework, the
disparities in power could render such states unable to protect their sovereignty and
resources effectively (Beckman, 2017).

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), often referred to as
the "constitution of the oceans," is the primary international legal framework for
regulating maritime activities. Adopted in 1982, it codifies the rights and responsibilities
of states concerning their use of the world's oceans, including navigation, resource
management, and the delineation of maritime boundaries. UNCLOS defines key
maritime zones, such as territorial seas, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and
continental shelves, offering clarity on the extent of state jurisdiction over marine
resources and activities. This comprehensive framework is crucial in addressing
disputes that arise from overlapping claims, as it provides clear guidelines for
determining the entitlements of coastal states while also protecting the rights of
landlocked nations (Klein, 2011).

A critical feature of UNCLOS is its dispute resolution mechanisms, which include

arbitration, conciliation, and adjudication. These mechanisms are designed to facilitate
the peaceful settlement of disputes, preventing conflicts that might otherwise escalate
into open confrontation. For instance, the Philippines successfully invoked UNCLOS
mechanisms in the landmark Philippines v. China case, also known as the South China
Sea Arbitration. This case demonstrated how international law could be used to resolve
disputes, with the Arbitral Tribunal invalidating China's expansive "nine-dash line"
claims. The Tribunal ruled that China's actions, including constructing artificial islands
and interfering with fishing activities within the Philippines’ EEZ, violated UNCLOS
provisions. This decision highlighted the potential of the rule of law to challenge
unilateral actions and uphold the rights of smaller states under international law
(Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2016).

The South China Sea dispute serves as a critical test case for the effectiveness of the
rule of law in resolving international conflicts. The region’s significance is twofold: its
abundant natural resources, such as oil, gas, and fisheries, and its strategic importance
as a maritime trade route through which one-third of global shipping passes annually.
These factors make the South China Sea a vital interest not only for claimant states but
also for the broader international community. China’s assertion of sovereignty over
nearly the entire region through its "nine-dash line" has exacerbated tensions, directly
conflicting with the maritime entitlements of other coastal states as defined by UNCLOS.
This has raised questions about the ability of international legal frameworks to manage
disputes when a major power disregards their provisions (Yee, 2018).

While UNCLOS provides a clear legal framework, the enforcement of its provisions
remains a significant challenge. In the South China Sea Arbitration, for example, China
rejected the Tribunal's jurisdiction and refused to participate in the proceedings, labeling
the final ruling as "null and void." Despite the ruling’s legal clarity, the absence of an
enforcement mechanism within UNCLOS has allowed China to continue its activities in
the region with little consequence. This underscores a broader limitation of the rule of
law in international relations: its reliance on state consent and voluntary compliance.
Without effective enforcement mechanisms, the efficacy of legal frameworks like
UNCLOS depends largely on the political will of states to adhere to their obligations
(Beckman, 2017; Klein, 2011).

The disparity between legal principles and geopolitical realities becomes evident in the
behavior of the parties involved in the South China Sea dispute. Smaller states like the
Philippines have relied on international law to assert their claims and protect their
maritime entitlements, as seen in the 2016 ruling. However, these states often face the
practical challenge of enforcing their legal rights against a more powerful adversary like
China. This situation highlights the importance of collective action and international
pressure in upholding the rule of law. The involvement of external actors, such as the
United States and regional organizations like ASEAN, can play a crucial role in
reinforcing legal norms and deterring unilateral actions (Council on Foreign Relations,
2024).

Despite its limitations, the rule of law remains an indispensable framework for managing
disputes in the South China Sea. It provides a platform for dialogue, negotiation, and
adjudication, emphasizing peaceful means of conflict resolution over coercion or force.
Moreover, the principles enshrined in UNCLOS set a precedent for addressing similar
disputes in other maritime regions, demonstrating the universality of legal norms in
governing international waters. Upholding the rule of law in the South China Sea is not
only essential for the claimant states but also for preserving the stability and security of
the Indo-Pacific region as a whole (Thirlway, 2019).

The rule of law’s role in the South China Sea dispute also has broader implications for
global governance. It underscores the need for stronger international institutions and
mechanisms to ensure compliance with legal norms. Efforts to strengthen the
enforcement capacity of UNCLOS, enhance regional cooperation, and engage external
powers in promoting maritime security are vital for addressing the challenges posed by
the dispute. While the path to a resolution remains fraught with difficulties, the rule of
law provides a principled and peaceful means of navigating these complexities, offering
a vision for a more just and stable international order (Beckman, 2017; Yee, 2018).

The 2016 ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal in The South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines
v. China) stands as a landmark in the application of international law to maritime
disputes. This case, initiated by the Philippines in 2013 under Annex VII of UNCLOS,
was a pivotal effort to challenge China’s sweeping "nine-dash line" claims, which
encompass nearly the entire South China Sea. The Philippines sought legal clarification
on the validity of China's claims and sought to assert its own maritime rights under
international law. The Tribunal’s decision, issued on July 12, 2016, was a defining
moment in the history of UNCLOS, reinforcing the principle that the rule of law should
govern disputes over maritime entitlements rather than unilateral assertions of power.

One of the most significant outcomes of the ruling was the Tribunal's unequivocal
rejection of the "nine-dash line." The Tribunal declared that China’s claims, which were
based on historical rights, had no legal basis under UNCLOS. The ruling emphasized
that any claims to maritime zones must be derived from UNCLOS and not from
historical assertions that predate the convention. This decision was critical in upholding
the legal framework established by UNCLOS, which seeks to balance the rights of
coastal states and the broader international community. It also reaffirmed that
overlapping maritime claims must be resolved based on established legal principles
rather than unilateral historical interpretations (Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2016).

In addition to invalidating the "nine-dash line," the Tribunal affirmed the Philippines’
sovereign rights within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This included the right to
access and exploit marine resources such as fish, oil, and natural gas within the EEZ.
The ruling also confirmed that China’s interference with Filipino fishermen and
obstruction of Philippine oil exploration activities violated these sovereign rights.
Scarborough Shoal, a traditional fishing ground historically used by Filipino fishermen,
was another focal point of the decision. The Tribunal found that China's actions,
including its imposition of fishing restrictions and harassment of Filipino fishing vessels,
were incompatible with its obligations under UNCLOS (Beckman, 2017).

The Tribunal also addressed the environmental implications of China’s activities in the
South China Sea. China's large-scale reclamation projects and the construction of
artificial islands caused significant environmental damage, particularly to coral reefs.
These actions violated China’s obligations under UNCLOS to protect and preserve the
marine environment. The Tribunal highlighted the need for states to prioritize
environmental conservation even when engaging in activities to assert territorial claims.
This aspect of the ruling was groundbreaking, as it underscored the interconnectedness
of environmental protection and maritime governance in international law (Permanent
Court of Arbitration, 2016).

Despite the legal clarity and comprehensive nature of the Tribunal's decision, its
practical impact has been limited due to the absence of an enforcement mechanism.
China refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings from the outset, claiming that
the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Following the ruling, China rejected the decision
outright, labeling it as "null and void" and accusing the Philippines of violating prior
agreements to resolve disputes through bilateral negotiations. China's stance
highlighted a fundamental limitation of international law: the reliance on state consent
and voluntary compliance to uphold legal rulings. Without a binding enforcement
mechanism, even landmark decisions such as the 2016 ruling risk being undermined by
non-compliance (Yee, 2018).

China’s defiance of the ruling has been accompanied by a continuation of its activities in
the South China Sea. These include the militarization of artificial islands, the
establishment of military installations, and the deployment of naval patrols to assert
control over disputed areas. These actions have not only escalated tensions in the
region but have also challenged the authority of international law. The lack of
consequences for China’s non-compliance has raised broader concerns about the
limitations of the rule of law in addressing disputes involving powerful states. While the
ruling provided legal clarity, its inability to constrain China’s actions underscores the
need for stronger international mechanisms to enforce compliance (Beckman, 2017).

The decision also exposed the geopolitical complexities surrounding the South China
Sea dispute. While the ruling was a legal victory for the Philippines, it placed the country
in a difficult position. The Philippines faced the challenge of balancing its reliance on the
legal ruling with the realities of managing its bilateral relationship with China, a major
economic and military power. This dilemma is emblematic of the broader challenges
faced by smaller states in asserting their rights under international law while navigating
the geopolitical pressures exerted by more powerful nations (Council on Foreign
Relations, 2024).

In the years following the ruling, the Philippines has adopted varying approaches in its
dealings with China. While the 2016 administration of President Benigno Aquino III
strongly pursued the case, subsequent administrations have taken a more conciliatory
stance, prioritizing economic cooperation with China over the enforcement of the ruling.
This shift reflects the pragmatic considerations that often influence the application of
international law in state practice. However, it also highlights the importance of
collective action and multilateral engagement in reinforcing the rule of law. Regional
organizations like ASEAN and external powers like the United States have a critical role
to play in supporting the enforcement of legal norms and deterring unilateral actions in
the South China Sea (Thirlway, 2019).

Moreover, the ruling has broader implications for the international legal order. It sets a
precedent for addressing similar disputes in other maritime regions, emphasizing the
universality of UNCLOS as a legal framework. The decision has also highlighted the
need for reforms to strengthen the enforceability of international legal rulings. This could
include measures to enhance the role of the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea (ITLOS) or to establish mechanisms for imposing consequences on states that defy
legal decisions. Such reforms are essential for ensuring that the rule of law remains a
viable tool for resolving disputes in an increasingly multipolar world (Yee, 2018).
The Philippines' legal victory in the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling placed it in a
challenging position—caught between adhering to the rule of law and confronting the
geopolitical realities of dealing with a much more powerful neighbor, China. Under the
administration of President Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines adopted a pragmatic and
more conciliatory approach toward China, signaling a shift in foreign policy that
prioritized engagement over confrontation. This approach included bilateral negotiations
and the pursuit of economic cooperation, particularly with regard to trade and
infrastructure development under China’s Belt and Road Initiative (Batongbacal, 2020).
Duterte's strategy aimed to manage tensions while leveraging China’s economic power
to benefit the Philippine economy.

However, this shift toward bilateral diplomacy over legal enforcement of the Tribunal’s
ruling raised concerns both domestically and internationally. Critics argued that the
Philippines’ soft approach undermined the legal precedent set by the 2016 ruling,
diminishing the role of international law in addressing maritime disputes. The legal
victory had been widely seen as a milestone in the enforcement of UNCLOS and the
assertion of smaller states' rights against more powerful neighbors. By prioritizing
diplomatic engagement over pushing for the ruling’s implementation, the Duterte
administration faced accusations of weakening regional unity and emboldening China to
disregard international legal rulings (Batongbacal, 2020).

Moreover, the Philippines’ stance placed a strain on its relations with other regional
powers, including Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei, who also have competing claims in
the South China Sea. These nations have been more vocal in seeking to uphold the
Tribunal’s ruling, but they too face diplomatic pressures and economic dependence on
China. Thus, the Philippines’ approach, while fostering bilateral relations with China,
highlighted the complexities of regional diplomacy, where legal decisions can often be
overshadowed by economic and political interests. The approach raised questions
about the effectiveness of international law in resolving disputes when geopolitical
factors take precedence (Council on Foreign Relations, 2024).

This dilemma also underscores the broader implications of the rule of law in the South
China Sea for regional governance. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) has struggled to present a unified response to the South China Sea dispute.
Efforts to negotiate a Code of Conduct with China have been slow and fraught with
complications, primarily due to the differing priorities among ASEAN member states.
Some countries, particularly those with significant economic ties to China, have been
reluctant to confront China directly, which has created a divide within the organization.
This lack of cohesion has weakened ASEAN’s ability to present a collective front in
support of international law and a rules-based order in the region (Council on Foreign
Relations, 2024).

The involvement of external powers such as the United States, Japan, and Australia
further complicates the issue. These countries have consistently advocated for the rule
of law in the South China Sea, emphasizing the importance of maintaining freedom of
navigation and opposing any unilateral actions that threaten regional stability. Their
involvement, particularly through joint military exercises and diplomatic pressure, has
highlighted the global stakes of the dispute, as the South China Sea is a vital artery for
international trade and a strategic point in the broader Indo-Pacific security architecture.
However, the presence of external powers has also been a source of tension, with
China accusing these countries of interfering in what it views as a regional issue best
resolved through bilateral negotiations. The varying priorities of ASEAN, the pressure
from powerful external actors, and China’s resistance to international intervention create
a complex geopolitical landscape where the rule of law often finds itself competing with
power dynamics (Beckman, 2017).

Another key aspect of the South China Sea dispute is its environmental significance.
The region is home to some of the world’s most biodiverse marine ecosystems,
including coral reefs and rich fisheries. These ecosystems are now under severe threat
due to China’s large-scale island-building activities and its unchecked exploitation of
marine resources. The construction of artificial islands and military facilities on reefs has
caused substantial environmental damage, destroying coral ecosystems that are crucial
for the survival of various marine species. Overfishing, exacerbated by China's
aggressive actions, has depleted fish stocks, affecting the livelihoods of millions of
people in Southeast Asia who depend on the sea for food and income (Center for
Strategic and International Studies, 2023).

UNCLOS imposes obligations on states to protect and preserve the marine

environment, including provisions on environmental impact assessments and
sustainable resource management. The 2016 Tribunal ruling underscored the
importance of these obligations, condemning China’s actions as violations of its duties
under UNCLOS. Despite this, the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism within
UNCLOS has allowed environmental degradation to continue largely unchecked. The
failure to enforce environmental protection measures in the South China Sea
underscores a critical gap in international law: while legal frameworks provide guidelines
for states’ behavior, the lack of enforcement mechanisms makes it difficult to hold states
accountable for violations that have global ecological implications (Permanent Court of
Arbitration, 2016).

The environmental challenges further complicate the application of the rule of law in the
region. The inability to effectively address the environmental impact of China’s actions
raises questions about the ability of the international community to use legal tools to
protect the global commons. As the South China Sea dispute continues to evolve, the
need for stronger international cooperation and more robust enforcement mechanisms
becomes increasingly apparent. Without concerted efforts to protect the environment,
the South China Sea risks becoming a flashpoint not only for territorial disputes but also
for a broader environmental crisis (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2023).

Despite these challenges, the rule of law remains an essential framework for managing
disputes in the South China Sea. International legal principles, particularly those
enshrined in UNCLOS, provide a foundation for dialogue, negotiation, and peaceful
resolution. The 2016 ruling, though unenforced, serves as a legal touchstone that
reinforces the rights of smaller states and affirms the importance of international law in a
world where power politics often dominate. Moving forward, the effectiveness of the rule
of law in the South China Sea will depend on the commitment of states to uphold legal
norms, as well as the willingness of the international community to hold violators
accountable. The 2016 ruling, despite its limitations, has created a precedent that could
shape future legal rulings and diplomatic efforts in the region, provided that there is
sufficient political will to support its enforcement (Beckman, 2017).

Ultimately, the South China Sea dispute exemplifies the tension between legal norms
and geopolitical realities. While legal frameworks like UNCLOS provide the tools for
resolving disputes, their success is often contingent on the political dynamics and the
willingness of states to adhere to legal rulings. As the dispute continues to shape the
future of regional and global governance, the rule of law remains a key, though
imperfect, instrument for achieving a just and sustainable resolution. The path forward
will require not only a renewed commitment to international law but also an enhanced
capacity for collective action and enforcement within the international community.
Chapter 3: Challenges to the Efficacy of the Rule of Law

China’s Non-Compliance

China’s rejection of the 2016 ruling from the Arbitral Tribunal in The South China Sea
Arbitration (Philippines v. China) represents one of the most significant challenges to the
effectiveness of international law in resolving disputes. Unlike domestic legal systems,
which have mechanisms to enforce judicial decisions, international law primarily relies
on voluntary state compliance and the peer pressure of the global community. This
absence of a binding enforcement system is a fundamental vulnerability, and China’s
disregard for the Tribunal’s decision highlights how powerful states can flout
international rulings without facing substantial consequences (Lynch, 2017).

One of the key arguments made by China in rejecting the Tribunal’s ruling is its
interpretation of the South China Sea as historically belonging to China. China bases its
claim on the so-called "nine-dash line," which is supported by maps from the early 20th
century that show Chinese territorial claims extending over a significant portion of the
South China Sea. These historical assertions, according to China, predate the 1982
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and therefore supersede
the provisions of the modern legal framework governing maritime entitlements. China
has used this argument to contest the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration,
which issued the ruling, claiming that sovereignty over land and maritime features is not
subject to arbitration under international law (Wang, 2019).

In addition to historical claims, China argues that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to rule
on matters of territorial sovereignty, focusing instead on disputes over maritime
entitlements. China insists that disputes regarding sovereignty over the islands in the
South China Sea must be resolved bilaterally, without interference from international
bodies. This argument is rooted in a broader ideological commitment to state
sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign
nations. By rejecting the Tribunal’s ruling and its legal conclusions, China effectively
positions itself as immune from international legal oversight in this context, despite
being a signatory to UNCLOS (Zhao, 2018).

The refusal of China to comply with the Tribunal’s ruling has profound implications for
the rule of law in international relations. The Arbitral Tribunal's decision was widely
praised for upholding international law and the rights of smaller states, particularly in
asserting the Philippines’ sovereign rights over its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and
condemning China’s environmental violations and coercive practices. However, China's
non-compliance undermines the authority of international legal institutions, setting a
dangerous precedent whereby powerful states can selectively ignore legal rulings that
contradict their interests. This has created a gap in the global legal order, one that could
embolden other states with significant power to disregard future international rulings
when they feel that compliance would undermine their geopolitical ambitions (Harrison,
2019).

Another significant challenge raised by China’s non-compliance is the lack of effective

enforcement mechanisms within international law. In domestic legal systems,
enforcement of court rulings is assured through police powers, judicial authorities, and
punitive measures. However, in international law, compliance is largely voluntary, with
limited enforcement options available to the international community. While there are
mechanisms in place such as sanctions and diplomatic pressure, these often prove
ineffective against states with substantial economic or military power. The international
community, particularly smaller nations that rely on multilateral institutions for dispute
resolution, is left vulnerable when powerful states like China defy rulings without facing
real consequences (Fidler, 2017).

China's non-compliance has not only raised concerns about the effectiveness of
international law in general, but it also challenges the capacity of international legal
bodies like the United Nations to enforce their decisions. While China has faced some
diplomatic pressure from countries like the United States, Australia, and Japan, these
efforts have done little to change Beijing’s stance. Despite calls for China to respect
international legal rulings, Beijing continues its expansionist activities in the South China
Sea, including its construction of artificial islands and the militarization of disputed
features. As such, the international community has found itself in a precarious position,
unable to compel China to abide by the law, despite widespread recognition that its
actions violate established international norms (Harrison, 2019).

The fragmented global response to China’s actions highlights the broader challenges of
enforcing the rule of law in the face of conflicting geopolitical interests. While the United
States and other Western powers have vocally supported the Tribunal's ruling, their
efforts are often undermined by China’s significant economic influence, particularly over
developing countries in the ASEAN region. Some Southeast Asian countries, which rely
heavily on trade with China, have shown reluctance to challenge China directly, fearing
economic retaliation or diplomatic isolation. This divide among key international actors
weakens the global push for a unified response to China’s defiance of the Tribunal’s
ruling (Feng, 2021). The ability of the international community to uphold legal rulings,
therefore, is limited by the economic and strategic influence that major powers can exert
over smaller states.

Moreover, China’s non-compliance has triggered broader questions about the

sustainability of the current international legal order. The South China Sea dispute
serves as a stark example of how international law is often subordinated to the strategic
interests of powerful states. While international law provides a normative framework for
resolving disputes, its success in achieving compliance is heavily contingent on the
political and economic leverage that states are willing to exert in support of legal norms.
This dependence on state willingness to comply without enforcement raises concerns
about the long-term credibility of international legal institutions (Kang, 2020).

Finally, China’s rejection of the 2016 Tribunal ruling underscores the challenges of
reconciling national interests with the rule of law in international relations. While legal
frameworks like UNCLOS offer the potential for peaceful dispute resolution, their
success depends on the willingness of states to comply with the decisions of
international courts and arbitration panels. In the case of the South China Sea, China’s
refusal to abide by the ruling raises critical questions about the ability of the international
community to ensure that legal norms are respected, particularly in disputes involving
powerful states with the ability to exert substantial economic and military pressure
(Klein, 2017). The South China Sea dispute, therefore, reveals deep contradictions
between legal principles and geopolitical realities, posing fundamental challenges to the
effective application of international law.

Military Power and the Threat of Coercion

China's continued militarization of artificial islands in the South China Sea and its use of
coercive tactics against other claimants are critical issues that undermine the principles
of peaceful dispute resolution enshrined in international law. Despite the clear legal
framework provided by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), China’s actions in the region have escalated tensions and created an
environment where legal norms are disregarded in favor of military dominance and
coercive diplomacy. These actions raise significant concerns regarding regional stability,
trust among claimant states, and the potential for armed conflict.

One of the most striking aspects of China's approach to the South China Sea dispute is
its ongoing militarization of artificial islands in the Spratly Archipelago and other
disputed areas. Since the early 2010s, China has constructed a series of artificial
islands by dredging sand onto submerged reefs and installing airstrips, military facilities,
radar systems, and missile defense systems on these islands. This process, which has
involved extensive environmental damage to coral reefs and the broader marine
ecosystem, has been widely criticized by neighboring states and international observers
as a violation of international law (Miller, 2022). The presence of Chinese military
infrastructure in these disputed areas effectively transforms the South China Sea into a
military theater, increasing the risk of conflict and making it difficult for peaceful
negotiations to take place.

China's aggressive actions have also extended beyond militarization, manifesting in

frequent coercive tactics aimed at deterring other claimant states from asserting their
rights. In recent years, there have been numerous reports of Chinese vessels using
water cannons, engaging in maritime blockades, and obstructing resupply missions to
Filipino outposts in the Spratlys. For example, in 2024, reports emerged of Chinese
coast guard ships using water cannons to block Philippine supply ships en route to the
Second Thomas Shoal, an area claimed by both the Philippines and China. These
incidents are part of a broader strategy of harassment aimed at asserting control over
disputed territories and intimidating smaller states into compliance (Al Jazeera, 2024;
The Guardian, 2024). Such actions not only violate the sovereign rights of other
claimant states but also exacerbate existing tensions, pushing the region closer to the
brink of military confrontation.

The use of coercion and the militarization of the South China Sea complicate efforts to
resolve the dispute through diplomatic and legal means. The principle of peaceful
dispute resolution is a cornerstone of international law, as laid out in Article 33 of the
United Nations Charter, which calls for states to settle their disputes by peaceful means.
China's actions in the region, however, stand in direct opposition to this principle, as
they involve the use of force and the threat of force to achieve political and territorial
objectives. Such tactics erode trust in the rule of law, as they suggest that military power
can override legal frameworks that are supposed to regulate state behavior in
international waters.

The consequences of militarization and coercion extend beyond the immediate tensions
between China and other claimants. These actions have far-reaching implications for
the broader regional security environment, as other states in the Indo-Pacific, including
the United States, Japan, and Australia, have expressed concern over China's
aggressive posture. These countries have a vested interest in maintaining the principles
of freedom of navigation and upholding UNCLOS, as the South China Sea serves as a
vital maritime corridor for global trade and security. In response to China's actions, the
United States and its allies have conducted freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs)
in the region to challenge China's expansive claims and assert the right of passage in
the contested waters. While these operations are intended to reaffirm international law,
they also risk escalating tensions with China, as Beijing views these actions as
provocative and an infringement on its territorial claims (Roberts, 2021).​
​
China’s military capabilities further exacerbate the power imbalance in the South China
Sea. China’s rapid military modernization, particularly in naval and air forces, has
positioned the country as the dominant military power in the region. The extensive
fortification of artificial islands, equipped with airstrips, radar systems, and missile
defense installations, further bolsters China’s military presence in contested waters.
This military presence, combined with aggressive tactics such as the use of maritime
militias, intimidation of fishing vessels, and militarized coast guard patrols, creates a
coercive environment where smaller states feel their sovereignty is under constant
threat.

For smaller claimant states like the Philippines and Vietnam, the prospect of military
confrontation with China is a daunting one. While these states may possess capable
military forces, they are significantly outmatched by China in terms of sheer size,
technological advancement, and defense budget. This military imbalance compels
smaller states to adopt a more cautious approach in addressing the South China Sea
dispute, fearing that a direct confrontation could lead to catastrophic consequences.
Even though international legal frameworks, such as UNCLOS, provide a legal basis for
contesting China’s claims, the military realities in the region often force smaller states to
prioritize diplomacy over legal action, hoping to avoid escalating tensions that could
lead to military conflict.

Furthermore, the militarization of the South China Sea complicates regional diplomacy,
particularly within the framework of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN). Although ASEAN countries have made efforts to negotiate a Code of Conduct
with China to manage tensions in the South China Sea, progress has been slow and
fraught with difficulties. Some ASEAN members, particularly those with economic ties to
China, have been reluctant to take a strong stance against Beijing, fearing potential
retaliation. China's coercive tactics, combined with its economic leverage over ASEAN
countries, have contributed to a lack of unity within the organization, undermining its
ability to present a cohesive approach to the dispute (Tay, 2020). This division within
ASEAN has weakened the region’s collective bargaining power, making it more difficult
to hold China accountable for its actions.

The militarization and coercion employed by China also present serious environmental
and humanitarian challenges. The construction of artificial islands has led to significant
ecological damage, including the destruction of coral reefs that are vital to the
biodiversity of the region. These actions violate China’s obligations under UNCLOS to
protect the marine environment and its obligation to preserve the fragile ecosystems of
the South China Sea for future generations. Furthermore, the use of water cannons and
other aggressive tactics against fishing vessels and resupply missions poses a direct
threat to the livelihoods of local communities, particularly Filipino fishermen who rely on
access to traditional fishing grounds. The Philippines has repeatedly protested China’s
actions, citing violations of its sovereign rights and the dangers posed to its citizens
(Calderon, 2023).

China’s continued militarization and coercive tactics in the South China Sea represent a
significant challenge to the rule of law and the peaceful resolution of disputes in the
region. These actions not only undermine the legal framework provided by UNCLOS but
also heighten the risk of armed conflict and instability. The international community,
particularly regional powers and global stakeholders, must work together to hold China
accountable for its actions and ensure that the principles of peaceful dispute resolution
and respect for international law are upheld. As tensions continue to rise, it is
increasingly clear that the militarization and coercion of the South China Sea must be
addressed through diplomatic and legal means, in order to preserve the stability and
security of the region for future generations.

Regional Power Dynamics

The South China Sea dispute exemplifies how regional power dynamics can shape the
efficacy and implementation of international legal frameworks and norms. The conflict
involves multiple claimants, including China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and
Brunei, all of whom assert various territorial and maritime claims over vast areas of the
South China Sea. These claims are based on historical, legal, and economic
arguments, but the core issue revolves around control over critical shipping lanes, rich
marine resources, and potential underwater energy reserves. However, the power
imbalance between China and these smaller states significantly complicates the
peaceful resolution of the dispute, particularly within the framework of international law.

China's dominance as an economic, military, and geopolitical power has positioned it in

a unique and advantageous position regarding the South China Sea. As the world's
second-largest economy and a permanent member of the United Nations Security
Council, China is not only capable of exerting considerable diplomatic pressure but also
possesses the military strength to back up its claims. In recent years, China has used its
economic influence to coerce smaller countries into compromising their claims or
refraining from pursuing international legal avenues that may challenge its interests.
The country's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), for example, has allowed China to invest
heavily in infrastructure projects in neighboring states, thereby increasing their
dependence on China and potentially reducing their willingness to confront it over the
South China Sea.

In contrast, the smaller claimant states lack the military and economic capacity to
challenge China directly. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei, while having
their respective claims under international law, face a daunting geopolitical reality. The
Philippines, for example, is geographically situated closer to China and has long faced
the dilemma of balancing its maritime rights with the need for economic and diplomatic
cooperation with its giant neighbor. Vietnam, with its own claims, is in a similar position,
seeking to preserve its sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands while
navigating its strategic relationship with both China and the United States. Malaysia and
Brunei, although smaller in size and influence, have also been increasingly vocal in
asserting their territorial claims, but their efforts have been undermined by China’s
economic and military influence in the region.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was designed to
provide a comprehensive framework for regulating maritime disputes and ensuring the
equitable distribution of oceanic resources. However, the implementation of UNCLOS is
complicated by power asymmetries in regions like the South China Sea. UNCLOS
provides legal avenues for resolving maritime disputes, such as arbitration or
adjudication by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA). However, the effectiveness of these legal instruments is often
hindered by the inability of international bodies to enforce their rulings. In the case of the
Philippines’ 2016 victory against China, the PCA ruling invalidated China’s claims to
most of the South China Sea based on its interpretation of historical rights. Despite this
legal victory, China has refused to acknowledge the ruling, continuing its militarization of
disputed areas, such as the construction of artificial islands.

The Philippines’ legal victory in 2016, though significant, is a clear illustration of the
power dynamics at play. While the Philippines won the legal battle, it found itself facing
significant challenges in enforcing the ruling. The Philippine government under
President Rodrigo Duterte sought to downplay the ruling in favor of improving bilateral
relations with China, leading to a shift in the Philippines' approach to the dispute. This
decision was largely driven by the economic interests tied to China, including trade and
investments, as well as the potential for China to retaliate through diplomatic or military
means. The reluctance of the Philippines to fully assert its legal victory further
underscores how the asymmetry in power complicates the practical application of legal
norms.

Vietnam has been more assertive in challenging China’s actions in the South China
Sea, especially in regard to its oil exploration activities in the disputed waters. In 2014,
China deployed an oil rig in waters claimed by Vietnam, prompting protests and
diplomatic condemnation. However, despite its protests, Vietnam is similarly constrained
by China’s influence in the region, as it relies on China for trade and investment and
shares a long border with the country. The fear of economic retaliation and the threat of
military escalation limit Vietnam's ability to pursue aggressive legal or military actions. In
this context, international legal rulings lose much of their force when the balance of
power favors one party that can afford to disregard them with little consequence.

Smaller states, like Brunei and Malaysia, also find themselves in a similar position.
Brunei, with its relatively small size and limited military capacity, has not actively
pursued its territorial claims in the face of China’s overwhelming presence in the South
China Sea. Malaysia, while more vocal than Brunei, faces a delicate balancing act
between asserting its territorial rights and maintaining good relations with China, its
largest trading partner. The strategic importance of the South China Sea for global trade
and regional stability further complicates these nations' positions, as they must navigate
their maritime disputes while being mindful of their broader geopolitical interests.

China’s rejection of international rulings, such as the 2016 PCA decision, highlights the
limits of international legal norms in regions dominated by power asymmetries.
UNCLOS and other international frameworks may offer a legal basis for resolving
disputes, but their efficacy is contingent on the willingness of states to comply with
rulings and the availability of enforcement mechanisms. The inability to compel China to
respect international law underscores the weakness of the current international system
in enforcing legal decisions when confronted with powerful states that can act with
impunity. The lack of robust enforcement mechanisms in UNCLOS and other
international frameworks has thus been a key factor in the failure to achieve lasting
resolution in the South China Sea.

The power imbalance also affects the broader international community’s response to the
South China Sea dispute. The United States, while a strong advocate for freedom of
navigation in the region, faces its own limitations in confronting China. The U.S. has
engaged in military freedom of navigation operations to challenge China’s claims and
preserve international access to the South China Sea, but it has refrained from taking
more aggressive actions due to the risk of escalating tensions. This reflects a broader
international hesitancy to engage in direct confrontation with China, especially when
economic ties are at stake. As a result, smaller claimant states are left in a difficult
position, caught between their legal rights under UNCLOS and the geopolitical realities
of dealing with a powerful neighbor.

Moreover, the increasing militarization of the South China Sea further complicates the
situation. China has constructed artificial islands and military installations on disputed
reefs, turning the region into a potential flashpoint for military conflict. The presence of
advanced weaponry, including surface-to-air missiles and radar systems, has altered
the strategic calculus for all parties involved. For smaller states, this shift has meant that
any attempt to assert their legal rights risks triggering a military response from China,
further deterring the use of legal channels for dispute resolution.

The role of ASEAN in managing the South China Sea dispute is also noteworthy. While
ASEAN has expressed concerns over China’s actions, the organization’s efforts have
often been hampered by divisions among its members. Countries like Indonesia and
Malaysia have been more vocal in their support for international law, while others have
sought to avoid antagonizing China. The lack of a unified stance within ASEAN has
prevented the group from taking more decisive action on the issue, thereby weakening
its ability to influence the outcome of the dispute.

The South China Sea dispute illustrates how regional power dynamics can constrain the
effectiveness of international legal norms and frameworks. While legal rulings such as
the 2016 PCA decision provide a clear basis for resolving disputes, the ability to enforce
these rulings is severely undermined by the power asymmetry between China and
smaller claimant states. The complex geopolitical environment, marked by economic
interdependence, military threats, and international divisions, makes the peaceful
resolution of the dispute increasingly difficult. The situation highlights the limitations of
international law in addressing disputes where power dynamics are heavily skewed in
favor of one party, raising important questions about the role of legal norms in conflict
resolution in regions of global significance.

The Influence of China’s Economic Power

China’s economic influence is a primary factor that exacerbates the power imbalance in
the South China Sea dispute. As the world’s second-largest economy, China possesses
an immense capacity to shape global and regional economic dynamics. Its economic
power extends far beyond its own borders, reaching deeply into the economies of
neighboring countries, particularly those in Southeast Asia. For many smaller claimant
states, such as the Philippines and Vietnam, their economic dependence on trade with
China creates a delicate balance between asserting their maritime claims and
safeguarding their economic interests. This economic leverage significantly impacts
these countries’ willingness to challenge China’s aggressive actions in the South China
Sea, even when those actions may contravene international law.

China is an indispensable trade partner for many Southeast Asian nations. The region's
economic integration with China has deepened over the past few decades, driven by
China’s status as a manufacturing powerhouse and the world's largest consumer
market. In particular, countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand
have become increasingly reliant on Chinese markets for exports and imports. For
example, China is the largest trading partner of the Philippines, and it plays a similar
role for Vietnam, making their economic well-being closely tied to maintaining positive
trade relations with Beijing. This economic dependence creates a natural hesitation for
these countries when considering any actions that might disrupt their relationship with
China, including taking a firm stance on the South China Sea issue.

The prospect of economic retaliation by China, in the form of trade sanctions,

investment cuts, or the disruption of vital supply chains, can deter these countries from
pursuing legal or diplomatic measures that could escalate tensions with China. As such,
even when smaller claimant states have legal grounds to challenge China’s actions in
the South China Sea, they may opt to prioritize their economic interests over legal
recourse. The fear of disrupting trade flows or jeopardizing lucrative infrastructure
projects backed by Chinese investments creates a powerful disincentive for these
countries to assert their maritime rights.
A significant aspect of China’s economic strategy is its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a
massive infrastructure development program that seeks to expand China’s influence by
financing projects across Asia, Africa, and Europe. Southeast Asia plays a pivotal role in
the BRI, and many of the region's countries have become key participants in the
initiative. The BRI’s focus on building and upgrading critical infrastructure, such as
ports, railways, and roads, has allowed China to deepen its economic ties with countries
in the South China Sea region. Through the BRI, China has extended loans,
investments, and technical expertise to several Southeast Asian nations, which has
made them economically more integrated with China.

While these investments can provide much-needed infrastructure and spur economic
development, they also bind these countries more closely to China. In some cases, the
financial aid and favorable trade deals offered through the BRI come with an implicit
political price. For smaller claimant states that are heavily involved in the BRI,
questioning China’s actions in the South China Sea could risk undermining the
economic and diplomatic support they receive under this initiative. In such
circumstances, countries may choose to downplay their objections to China’s expansive
maritime claims, opting instead to avoid confronting China over territorial disputes in
order to maintain these advantageous economic relationships.

The specter of economic retaliation is one of the strongest deterrents preventing smaller
states from taking a more aggressive stance against China. For instance, if a country
like the Philippines were to pursue legal action against China or take a more
confrontational approach, there is the risk that China could retaliate by imposing trade
barriers or limiting access to the Chinese market. In an era of increasingly globalized
trade, where many Southeast Asian economies are deeply intertwined with China, such
retaliation would have severe economic consequences. The potential for losing access
to Chinese markets or critical supply chains is a high-stakes concern, particularly for
countries that rely heavily on exports to China.

China's ability to leverage its economic influence to dissuade countries from taking a
stand on the South China Sea issue can also be seen in the way some countries have
muted their public criticisms of China’s actions. While countries like the United States
and Australia have voiced strong objections to China’s militarization of the South China
Sea, many Southeast Asian nations have taken a more cautious approach. The
economic benefits derived from China often outweigh the political costs of staying silent
on issues related to China’s territorial claims, especially when the potential for economic
retaliation is so great.

In addition to trade sanctions, China has the ability to use other forms of economic
coercion to ensure that smaller claimant states align with its strategic objectives. This
includes leveraging its role as a dominant source of foreign direct investment (FDI) in
Southeast Asia. Chinese investments in infrastructure, energy, and agriculture have
helped to stimulate economic growth in the region. However, these investments are
often accompanied by the expectation of political loyalty, with countries in the region
carefully considering the broader implications of their actions when engaging with
China.

For smaller states, refusing to comply with China’s interests or publicly challenging its
territorial claims in the South China Sea could result in the suspension or cancellation of
planned investments. In some cases, countries may find themselves in debt to China
due to loans taken out for infrastructure projects, creating a situation where the fear of
financial instability discourages confrontation. The risk of economic coercion is thus a
potent tool that China uses to reinforce its position in the South China Sea, ensuring
that its neighbors are hesitant to take actions that would undermine its regional
objectives.

China’s economic dominance is not only tied to trade and investment but also to its
growing influence over regional connectivity. Through its infrastructure projects,
particularly those under the BRI, China has gained control over key transportation and
trade hubs in the region. Chinese investments in port facilities, such as the ones in
Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan, enhance its ability to control important maritime
chokepoints that are essential for global trade. The construction of these infrastructure
projects in key strategic locations has further reinforced China’s economic leverage in
the region, creating a scenario where smaller states are more likely to be complicit in
China’s actions in the South China Sea to avoid losing access to critical infrastructure or
logistical hubs.

Furthermore, China has used its economic power to encourage the integration of
regional supply chains, which has made the economies of Southeast Asia increasingly
reliant on Chinese production and trade networks. This level of economic
interconnectedness makes it more difficult for smaller states to act independently in
their pursuit of international legal remedies. The fear of disrupting these economic
connections and the potential economic fallout from doing so make it harder for smaller
claimant states to challenge China’s actions, even if they are in violation of international
law.

Given the economic ramifications of challenging China’s maritime claims, smaller

claimant states may be reluctant to pursue legal remedies through international
channels. For example, the Philippines' decision to bring its case against China to the
Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2013 was a bold move, but it also came with risks.
The subsequent victory in 2016, which invalidated China’s claims to large portions of
the South China Sea, was a significant legal triumph. However, the Philippines has
found it difficult to enforce the ruling, particularly with China continuing to assert control
over the disputed waters. This situation underscores the difficulty smaller states face in
reconciling their legal rights with the economic and geopolitical realities of dealing with a
regional giant like China.

In addition to the legal challenges, pursuing a confrontational approach also risks

escalating tensions in the region. The threat of military conflict, combined with economic
risks, makes it exceedingly difficult for smaller claimant states to pursue aggressive
legal or diplomatic actions. While international legal norms, such as those outlined in the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), offer potential solutions,
they are often rendered ineffective when confronted with the reality of China’s economic
leverage.

China’s overwhelming economic power plays a pivotal role in exacerbating the power
imbalance in the South China Sea dispute. The economic dependence of smaller
claimant states on China’s markets, investments, and infrastructure projects makes it
difficult for them to take a firm stance against Chinese actions, even when they are in
violation of international law. The Belt and Road Initiative, in particular, has allowed
China to exert significant economic influence in Southeast Asia, reinforcing its
dominance and discouraging dissent. For many countries in the region, the fear of
economic retaliation, coupled with the potential loss of access to critical trade routes
and infrastructure, creates strong disincentives to challenge China’s claims. As a result,
China’s economic power significantly stifles the willingness of smaller states to assert
their maritime rights, highlighting the complexities of resolving territorial disputes when
economic considerations and power asymmetries are at play.

Diplomacy and Strategic Alliances

As China continues to assert its dominance in the South China Sea through both
economic leverage and military power, smaller claimant states have increasingly turned
to diplomacy and strategic alliances as a way to counterbalance Beijing's influence in
the region. These states, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei,
recognize that they are unable to challenge China directly due to the asymmetry in
power. Instead, they seek to strengthen diplomatic ties with external powers that share
their concerns about China’s actions and are willing to support their efforts in upholding
international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS).

One of the most prominent strategies employed by these smaller states has been the
strengthening of bilateral relations with major external powers, such as the United
States, Japan, and Australia. These countries have expressed strong support for the
rule of law in the South China Sea, emphasizing the importance of maintaining freedom
of navigation and ensuring that maritime disputes are resolved peacefully and in
accordance with international law. Through diplomatic engagement, these nations aim
to prevent any unilateral actions by China that would alter the status quo or undermine
the rights of smaller claimant states. As a result, smaller states in Southeast Asia have
found it beneficial to build closer security and defense relationships with these powers
as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence.

The United States, in particular, has played a significant role in supporting Southeast
Asian nations in the South China Sea dispute. While the U.S. is not a claimant state
itself, it has long taken an interest in ensuring that freedom of navigation in the region is
upheld and that UNCLOS is respected. The U.S. has conducted numerous Freedom of
Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea, which serve as a direct
challenge to China’s expansive territorial claims. These operations, typically carried out
by the U.S. Navy, have become a symbol of American commitment to defending the
principles of international law in the face of China’s growing assertiveness. Through
these operations, the U.S. signals its support for the rights of all nations to access the
vital shipping lanes of the South China Sea without fear of Chinese interference
(Friedman, 2020; Hegadorn, 2021).

In addition to FONOPs, the United States has strengthened its defense and security ties
with countries like the Philippines and Vietnam, both of which have competing territorial
claims with China. These nations have sought to enhance military cooperation with the
U.S. in the form of joint military exercises, arms sales, and enhanced security
partnerships. For example, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)
between the United States and the Philippines allows for increased U.S. military
presence in the Philippines, which is strategically located near key contested areas in
the South China Sea. Such arrangements provide these countries with a security buffer
and serve as a deterrent against potential Chinese military aggression (Oberdorfer &
Hampson, 2017).

However, while alliances with external powers like the U.S., Japan, and Australia
provide valuable support, they are not without their complexities. Smaller claimant
states must carefully navigate their relationships with both China and these external
powers to avoid alienating one side or provoking unnecessary conflict. In some cases,
these countries face pressure from China to limit their cooperation with outside powers,
especially in defense and security matters. China has often used economic or
diplomatic leverage to discourage countries from strengthening ties with the U.S. or
other Western powers, threatening to reduce trade or investment, or even exerting
political pressure to discourage the presence of foreign military forces in the region
(Bader, 2019; China Power Team, 2020).

This balancing act can be particularly challenging for countries like the Philippines,
which is heavily dependent on both China for trade and investment, and the U.S. for
security support. For instance, the Philippines has faced diplomatic pressure from China
over its military ties with the U.S., including the increased rotational presence of U.S.
troops in the country. While some leaders in the Philippines have sought to strengthen
ties with China to promote economic development, others have emphasized the need
for strong defense relations with the U.S. to counterbalance China’s military actions in
the South China Sea. The desire to maintain good relations with both China and
external powers underscores the complexities that smaller states face when navigating
the geopolitics of the region (Feinberg, 2018; Ford, 2020).

Additionally, regional organizations like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations

(ASEAN) have attempted to play a role in mitigating tensions in the South China Sea.
While ASEAN has generally advocated for dialogue and peaceful resolution of disputes,
its ability to take meaningful action has been hampered by internal divisions. ASEAN’s
members hold differing views on how to handle China’s assertiveness in the region, with
some countries more eager to challenge China than others. This lack of unity within
ASEAN makes it difficult for the organization to present a cohesive response to China’s
actions, further highlighting the need for smaller claimant states to seek external support
to bolster their positions (Emmers, 2014; Batongbacal, 2019).

Diplomacy and strategic alliances have become essential tools for smaller claimant
states in the South China Sea dispute to counterbalance China’s dominance. By
strengthening ties with external powers such as the United States, Japan, and Australia,
these countries seek to ensure that their territorial claims are respected and that the
principles of international law are upheld in the region. However, these alliances come
with significant challenges, as smaller states must carefully balance their relationships
with both China and external powers to avoid economic retaliation or military
confrontation. Ultimately, the South China Sea dispute underscores the complexities of
regional diplomacy in an era of shifting power dynamics and highlights the importance
of strategic alliances in addressing global challenges.

ASEAN’s Role and Internal Divisions

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has played a significant role in
the South China Sea dispute by providing a platform for dialogue among the claimant
states and by working to address the tensions arising from China’s assertiveness in the
region. However, ASEAN’s ability to present a unified front has been severely hampered
by internal divisions, many of which stem from the economic and political influence
China exerts over some of its member states. These divisions have complicated the
organization’s efforts to adopt a strong, collective position on the South China Sea
dispute, thereby diminishing ASEAN’s effectiveness as a regional actor in this critical
geopolitical issue.

One of the most significant challenges to ASEAN’s unity in the South China Sea issue is
the varying degrees of economic dependence on China among its members. Countries
such as Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar have close economic and political ties with
Beijing, which has become a crucial partner in terms of trade, investment, and
infrastructure development. As a result, these countries are often reluctant to take
strong stances against China, especially when it comes to issues that could jeopardize
their economic interests. In particular, Cambodia has consistently blocked ASEAN
statements or resolutions that criticize China’s actions in the South China Sea, a move
widely interpreted as a result of its close relationship with China (Taylor, 2014). Similarly,
Laos, which relies heavily on Chinese investment for infrastructure projects, has often
sided with China in ASEAN discussions to avoid damaging its economic ties with
Beijing. These internal divisions have led to difficulties in formulating a coherent,
collective ASEAN response to China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea (Dutton,
2017).

On the other hand, countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia, which have
direct territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea, have been more vocal in
their opposition to China’s maritime claims and actions. These states have repeatedly
called for stronger ASEAN responses to China’s actions, including the adoption of a
legally binding Code of Conduct (COC) that would regulate behavior in the disputed
waters and prevent further militarization of the region. However, the inability of ASEAN
to reach a consensus on such matters highlights the difficulty of achieving unity when
member states are divided along economic and political lines. For instance, while
Vietnam and the Philippines have advocated for more robust provisions in the COC,
including measures to prevent the militarization of the Spratly Islands, China has
consistently resisted such proposals, seeking to maintain its strategic advantage in the
region (Le, 2016).

The ASEAN-China negotiations on the COC, which began in earnest in the early 2000s,
have been a crucial aspect of the organization’s efforts to manage tensions in the South
China Sea. The COC was intended to be a framework for peacefully resolving disputes
and reducing the risk of military conflict in the region. However, the negotiations have
been slow and fraught with challenges, not least because of China’s reluctance to
accept provisions that would limit its actions. For example, China has resisted any
binding commitments that would curtail its military activities in the South China Sea or
its construction of artificial islands, both of which are seen as direct threats to regional
stability (Fravel, 2019). The lack of a binding COC underscores the difficulty of
achieving meaningful cooperation within ASEAN when its members are divided by
competing economic interests and security concerns. This, in turn, has highlighted the
broader challenge facing smaller states in the region: even when they seek to
collaborate to counterbalance China’s influence, they often find it difficult to maintain a
cohesive strategy due to the diverse interests and priorities within ASEAN.
ASEAN’s internal divisions also complicate its ability to leverage its collective influence
on China. In recent years, ASEAN has become increasingly fragmented, with some
member states growing closer to China while others continue to pursue stronger ties
with external powers like the United States and Japan. The divergence of interests
within ASEAN has led to an overall weakening of the organization’s diplomatic voice on
the South China Sea issue. For example, when the Philippines sought to assert its
rights in the region following a 2016 arbitral ruling in favor of its claims, ASEAN was
unable to issue a unified statement of support due to opposition from Cambodia and
other countries with close ties to China. This lack of a unified response has undermined
ASEAN’s credibility as a collective entity capable of addressing one of the region’s most
pressing security challenges (Sung, 2021).

Despite these challenges, ASEAN continues to push for dialogue and peaceful
resolution of disputes, emphasizing the importance of maintaining stability in the South
China Sea. ASEAN’s approach has been largely diplomatic, focusing on engagement
with China rather than confrontation. However, this approach has often been seen as
insufficient in addressing the growing tensions in the region. The lack of a unified
ASEAN stance on the South China Sea has raised questions about the organization’s
ability to navigate the increasingly complex geopolitical landscape of the Indo-Pacific,
where China’s power is on the rise and external actors like the United States and
Australia are increasingly involved in the region’s security affairs (Buszynski, 2018).

ASEAN’s role in the South China Sea dispute has been marked by both opportunities
and challenges. While the organization has provided a platform for dialogue and has
made efforts to promote peaceful resolution through the Code of Conduct negotiations,
its internal divisions have hindered its ability to present a united diplomatic approach.
The differing economic interests and political alignments of ASEAN member states have
complicated the organization’s efforts to address China’s growing influence in the
region. As a result, the South China Sea dispute continues to expose the limitations of
ASEAN’s collective diplomatic power and highlights the broader challenges faced by
smaller states in navigating the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific.

The Risk of International Inaction

The asymmetry of power in the South China Sea also raises concerns about the The
South China Sea dispute, with its complex web of competing territorial claims, serves as
a striking example of the limitations of the international legal system when confronted
with powerful state actors. At the heart of this issue is the asymmetry of power between
China and the smaller claimant states, which significantly affects the international
community's ability to hold China accountable for its actions. While countries like the
United States, Japan, and Australia have expressed support for upholding the rule of
law in the region, the effectiveness of these efforts is often compromised by the
geopolitical realities of the Indo-Pacific. The inability of the international legal system to
enforce its rulings against a major power like China underscores the challenges faced
by smaller nations in asserting their rights and maintaining stability in the region.

A critical concern stemming from the power imbalance in the South China Sea is the
difficulty in holding China accountable for its actions under international law. In 2016, an
arbitral tribunal established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) ruled in favor of the Philippines, rejecting China’s extensive claims to the
South China Sea and declaring that China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights.
However, despite the ruling, China has consistently refused to acknowledge the
tribunal’s decision, dismissing it as a “political farce” and continuing its actions in the
region. This defiance of international legal rulings highlights the limitations of the
international legal system when it comes to enforcement. The international community,
while vocal in its support for the ruling, has been unable to compel China to comply,
raising important questions about the efficacy of international law when powerful states
choose to disregard it (Swaine, 2016).

The lack of an enforcement mechanism within UNCLOS further complicates the

situation. While UNCLOS provides a legal framework for resolving maritime disputes, its
effectiveness is contingent on the willingness of states to abide by its provisions. Unlike
domestic legal systems, which have courts, police forces, and other institutions to
enforce rulings, international law lacks a centralized enforcement mechanism. The onus
of enforcement often falls on states and international organizations, but when a powerful
nation like China refuses to comply, the international community has limited recourse. In
the case of the South China Sea, China’s economic and military clout has allowed it to
continue its assertive actions without facing significant consequences, further
weakening the ability of international law to resolve the dispute (Batongbacal, 2017;
Zhang, 2019).

Moreover, the geopolitical interests of key international actors complicate efforts to

pressure China into compliance. While countries like the United States and Japan have
repeatedly emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring
freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, their actions have often been more
symbolic than substantive. The U.S. has conducted Freedom of Navigation Operations
(FONOPs) in the region, but these operations have not been able to compel China to
change its behavior. The reluctance of the international community to take stronger,
more coordinated actions, such as imposing sanctions or increasing military pressure, is
driven by a range of factors, including economic dependence on China and concerns
about escalating tensions into broader conflicts (Goh, 2020). For smaller states in the
region, this lack of meaningful international support further diminishes their confidence
in the ability of international law to protect their interests.

The broader implications of international inaction are significant for the future of the
South China Sea and the international legal system as a whole. If China is allowed to
continue its expansionist activities without facing consequences, it could set a
dangerous precedent for other powerful nations to similarly disregard international law
when it suits their interests. This would undermine the credibility of institutions like
UNCLOS and weaken the global commitment to upholding international norms.
Furthermore, it could embolden other states with territorial ambitions to adopt similarly
aggressive tactics, leading to an erosion of the rule of law in international relations
(Kaplan, 2019).

In conclusion, the risk of international inaction in the South China Sea dispute highlights
the limitations of the current international legal framework in addressing the actions of
powerful states. The lack of a robust enforcement mechanism within UNCLOS,
combined with the geopolitical realities of the Indo-Pacific, has made it difficult for the
international community to hold China accountable for its maritime claims and actions.
While countries like the United States, Japan, and Australia have voiced support for the
rule of law, their efforts have been insufficient to compel China to comply with
international legal rulings. The failure to enforce international law in this case could have
far-reaching consequences for the future of global governance and the protection of
sovereign rights in contested maritime regions.

The Role of the International Community

The international community plays a vital role in addressing the power dynamics at play
in the South China Sea, where smaller claimant states are often at a disadvantage due
to China's overwhelming economic and military power. These smaller nations, such as
the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei, are heavily reliant on the broader
international system to uphold the rule of law and ensure their territorial claims are
respected. However, these countries are often unable to counterbalance China’s
influence on their own. In this context, the collective efforts of global
powers—particularly the United States, Japan, and Australia—become crucial in
shaping the regional balance of power and fostering a multilateral approach to the
dispute.

The United States has long been a key player in the South China Sea dispute, primarily
due to its strategic interests in maintaining freedom of navigation and ensuring the
security of global maritime trade routes. As a global superpower with significant military
capabilities, the U.S. has taken a leading role in challenging China’s expansive claims
and supporting smaller claimant states. One of the most prominent actions taken by the
United States in this regard has been its Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs)
in the South China Sea. These operations involve the U.S. Navy sailing within what
China considers its territorial waters, thereby asserting the principle of freedom of
navigation in international waters as guaranteed under the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). FONOPs have become a symbol of U.S.
commitment to upholding international law and ensuring that no country can unilaterally
assert control over vital global shipping lanes (Smith, 2017). While these operations
have not been enough to force China to alter its behavior, they have sent a clear
message of opposition to China’s expansive maritime claims.

In addition to its military presence, the United States has also supported smaller
claimant states diplomatically. By engaging in bilateral security arrangements, such as
the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the Philippines, the U.S. has
provided these countries with enhanced military assistance and strategic support. This
has been especially important for the Philippines, which has faced increasing pressure
from China over its claims in the South China Sea. The U.S. has made it clear that an
attack on Philippine territory, including areas in the South China Sea, would trigger a
mutual defense obligation under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty. This security
guarantee aims to deter China from taking further aggressive actions, knowing that the
U.S. could potentially intervene in defense of its ally (Hughes, 2020).

Similarly, Japan and Australia have been significant contributors to regional stability
through defense partnerships and diplomatic initiatives. Both countries have expressed
strong support for international law and the peaceful resolution of disputes in the South
China Sea. Japan, with its economic and security interests in the region, has worked
closely with the United States to ensure freedom of navigation and to provide
humanitarian and development assistance to Southeast Asian nations. Japan has also
participated in joint military exercises with the Philippines and other regional partners to
enhance their defense capabilities and deter Chinese aggression. Additionally, Japan
has provided financial support for infrastructure development in Southeast Asia, helping
to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative by offering alternative investment options that
are not contingent on political alignment with Beijing (Nakano, 2018).

Australia, as a key regional player, has also played an active role in supporting smaller
claimant states. Australia has been vocal in its support for the rule of law and has
regularly called for the peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea based on
international law. Like the United States, Australia has conducted naval operations in
the region to assert freedom of navigation and demonstrate its commitment to regional
security. Australia has also strengthened its defense ties with ASEAN countries and has
engaged in multilateral dialogues, including through the East Asia Summit, to promote
cooperative security arrangements in the Indo-Pacific (Bowers, 2020). By aligning itself
with the United States and other like-minded countries, Australia has sought to bolster
the diplomatic efforts to counterbalance China’s influence in the region.

For these external actors to be effective, however, they must maintain a coordinated
and measured approach. The international community’s involvement in the South China
Sea dispute carries the risk of escalating tensions with China, particularly if external
powers take actions that China perceives as a direct challenge to its sovereignty and
territorial claims. For example, China has repeatedly warned the U.S., Japan, and
Australia not to interfere in the dispute, framing their involvement as foreign meddling in
a regional issue that should be resolved between China and the Southeast Asian
claimant states. If external powers act without careful coordination or provoke China too
aggressively, it could lead to a dangerous escalation of tensions that could destabilize
the region and hinder diplomatic efforts (Goh, 2020). Therefore, while support from
global powers is essential for ensuring that international law is respected in the South
China Sea, it must be pursued in a manner that avoids unnecessary provocation and
promotes multilateral cooperation.

The role of the international community in the South China Sea dispute is not limited to
military support and diplomatic engagement. Global powers also have an important role
to play in fostering multilateral dialogue and encouraging ASEAN to take a more active
and united stance in addressing the dispute. While ASEAN has been divided by internal
differences and China’s influence over certain member states, it remains a critical
regional organization through which the international community can work to promote
peace and stability. Supporting ASEAN in its efforts to negotiate a Code of Conduct with
China, for example, can be an effective way for external powers to contribute to a
rules-based regional order without exacerbating tensions. This approach requires
careful balancing and diplomacy, but it offers a pathway for international actors to help
manage the dispute in a manner that respects the rights and interests of all parties
involved (Emmers, 2016).

The international community, particularly the United States, Japan, and Australia, plays
a crucial role in addressing the power dynamics in the South China Sea. While smaller
claimant states are often unable to counterbalance China’s economic and military
influence on their own, the collective efforts of these global powers can help shift the
regional balance in favor of a rules-based international order. However, for these efforts
to be effective, they must be coordinated and pursued in a way that avoids escalating
tensions with China. By maintaining a diplomatic, multilateral approach, the international
community can support smaller states in asserting their rights and upholding the
principles of international law in the South China Sea.
Chapter 4: Strengthening the Rule of Law

Multilateral Engagement

The South China Sea dispute is an ongoing and complex issue involving multiple
nations and interests, with China asserting expansive claims over most of the sea, a
position disputed by several Southeast Asian countries, including the Philippines,
Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. The region is critical not only for its significant maritime
trade routes but also for its potential natural resources, such as oil and gas. Given these
stakes, the international community's engagement, particularly through multilateral
organizations like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), is crucial in
ensuring that the legal and diplomatic process is robust enough to resist unilateral
actions and promote adherence to international law. However, despite the importance of
collective action, internal divisions within ASEAN have posed significant challenges to
achieving a unified stance, making multilateral engagement all the more important yet
difficult.

ASEAN is a cornerstone of regional cooperation in Southeast Asia, composed of ten

member states, including several involved in the South China Sea dispute. As an
organization, ASEAN has sought to mediate and manage tensions arising from the
dispute, emphasizing the need for peace, stability, and respect for international law. The
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is central to ASEAN's
position, as it provides a legal framework that governs maritime boundaries, resource
rights, and freedom of navigation. ASEAN’s role in promoting these principles through
multilateral diplomacy is critical, especially considering that the South China Sea is one
of the world’s busiest maritime trade routes and a focal point for strategic military
interests (Emmers, 2016).

A unified ASEAN stance on the South China Sea would undoubtedly increase
diplomatic pressure on China to comply with international norms and legal rulings. The
2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling, which rejected China’s historical claims and affirmed the
Philippines’ rights to its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), is an example of international
law being used to assert the rights of smaller states. A cohesive ASEAN response in
support of the ruling could have bolstered the legitimacy of the decision and
strengthened international opposition to China’s assertive actions. However, due to
internal differences, ASEAN has struggled to present a unified front on the issue, which
has led to a diluted diplomatic response that lacks the strength to challenge China
effectively (Kaplan, 2019).

The internal divisions within ASEAN are largely a result of varying economic, political,
and security considerations among member states. While countries like the Philippines,
Vietnam, and Malaysia are more vocal in opposing China's claims, other member states
such as Cambodia and Laos have cultivated close economic ties with China and have
been less willing to take a strong stance against Beijing. Cambodia, in particular, has
aligned itself with China in many aspects, including on the South China Sea issue, due
to its deep economic and political dependencies on Beijing. This divide within ASEAN
has led to inconsistent messaging on the South China Sea, with some countries more
inclined to downplay the dispute to preserve favorable relations with China (Emmers,
2016).

This internal disunity has undermined ASEAN’s ability to present a cohesive and
coordinated approach to the South China Sea dispute. Despite this, ASEAN has taken
some steps to address the issue diplomatically. One of the most significant initiatives
has been the negotiation of a Code of Conduct (COC) with China. The COC aims to
establish a set of guidelines to prevent the escalation of tensions, address the
militarization of disputed features, and promote peaceful dispute resolution. The
negotiations for the COC have been slow, with China resisting provisions that would
limit its activities in the region, such as the cessation of land reclamation and the
prohibition of military installations on artificial islands. However, ASEAN continues to
advocate for the development of the COC as a means to manage tensions, despite the
challenges of aligning the interests of all its members (Swaine, 2016).
The slow progress of the COC negotiations highlights the difficulty of achieving
meaningful multilateral cooperation when member states have diverging interests.
Some ASEAN countries are more concerned with maintaining economic relations with
China, while others prioritize security and territorial integrity. For ASEAN to be more
effective in engaging with China and advocating for international law, it must overcome
these internal divisions and develop a more unified strategy. This would require
increased diplomatic engagement, dialogue, and confidence-building measures among
ASEAN member states to align their positions and create a shared understanding of the
importance of legal norms in the South China Sea (Tan, 2017).

Beyond ASEAN, other regional organizations, such as the East Asia Summit (EAS) and
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), play important roles in fostering
multilateral engagement. These organizations provide additional platforms for dialogue
and cooperation on a range of issues, including maritime security, trade, and regional
stability. While ASEAN remains the primary body through which Southeast Asian
countries engage with one another, EAS and APEC offer valuable avenues for broader
regional cooperation, which can help address the South China Sea dispute from a
multilateral perspective. Engagement through these platforms allows ASEAN to work
with other stakeholders, such as the United States, Japan, and Australia, to reinforce
the importance of international law and strengthen the collective regional response to
China’s actions (Bowers, 2020).

The involvement of external powers is particularly important in promoting adherence to

international law in the South China Sea. The United States, as a global superpower,
has been actively involved in challenging China’s maritime claims through its Freedom
of Navigation Operations (FONOPs), which assert the rights of all nations to navigate
freely in the region. While the U.S. is not a claimant state in the dispute, its military and
diplomatic presence in the region serves as a counterbalance to China’s growing
influence. Similarly, Japan and Australia have also been vocal in their support for
international law and have engaged in security and defense partnerships with ASEAN
countries. Through these external partnerships, ASEAN can gain the support it needs to
maintain pressure on China while simultaneously strengthening regional security and
economic cooperation (Kaplan, 2019).

The effectiveness of multilateral engagement in the South China Sea dispute is shaped
by the political and diplomatic dynamics within ASEAN and its relationships with
external actors. While ASEAN has fostered numerous partnerships with countries like
the United States, Japan, Australia, and the European Union, the organization’s ability
to wield collective influence depends significantly on its internal cohesion. ASEAN's
success in addressing regional challenges, including the South China Sea, relies on
member states aligning their priorities, coordinating actions, and maintaining a unified
diplomatic stance. If ASEAN member states are not able to reconcile their differences
and present a united front, external actors may become less motivated to provide
meaningful support, and China’s increasing assertiveness in the region could go
unchallenged. Therefore, ASEAN’s internal political dynamics and its ability to maintain
unity are critical to shaping the course of multilateral engagement in resolving the South
China Sea dispute.

One of the main challenges facing ASEAN’s collective efforts is the differing geopolitical
and economic interests of its member states. ASEAN is a diverse organization, with
member countries possessing a wide range of economic priorities, security concerns,
and diplomatic relationships. For instance, while countries like the Philippines, Vietnam,
and Malaysia view the South China Sea dispute as a crucial issue of sovereignty and
national security, other ASEAN members such as Cambodia and Laos have historically
aligned more closely with China due to their economic dependence on Chinese
investments and trade. These differences create significant challenges when ASEAN
attempts to present a coordinated stance on contentious issues, as members may be
reluctant to antagonize China for fear of damaging their economic or political ties. This
divergence in national interests complicates consensus-building efforts within ASEAN
and poses a barrier to effective multilateral diplomacy on the South China Sea issue.

Despite these internal divisions, ASEAN’s potential as a platform for promoting peace
and stability in the South China Sea remains strong. The organization’s commitment to
principles such as non-interference, consensus-building, and respect for sovereignty
provides a foundation for multilateral engagement. ASEAN’s collective approach to
resolving regional disputes through dialogue, cooperation, and adherence to
international law sets it apart from other regional organizations. These principles, when
consistently applied, can help mitigate tensions between ASEAN members and external
actors, facilitating diplomatic efforts to resolve the South China Sea dispute through
peaceful means rather than military confrontation. The organization’s emphasis on the
peaceful settlement of disputes aligns with the broader goals of regional stability,
ensuring that the South China Sea remains a zone of cooperation rather than conflict.

The role of external actors is indispensable in strengthening ASEAN’s multilateral

engagement. Countries like the United States, Japan, Australia, and the European
Union play a significant role in supporting ASEAN’s efforts to uphold international law
and safeguard the rights of smaller claimant states. Their involvement is crucial in
reinforcing the rules-based international order and ensuring that China is held
accountable for its actions in the South China Sea. External powers can provide
diplomatic, economic, and military support to ASEAN countries, helping to
counterbalance China’s growing influence in the region. For example, the United States
has maintained a strong presence in the Indo-Pacific region through its military alliances
and partnerships with countries such as the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea. This
presence not only contributes to regional security but also sends a clear signal to China
that any aggressive actions in the South China Sea will face opposition from the
international community.

Furthermore, external actors can assist ASEAN by promoting the full implementation of
international legal rulings, such as the 2016 arbitral ruling in favor of the Philippines.
The United States, in particular, has consistently emphasized the importance of
upholding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and
supporting the rule of law in the region. By aligning with ASEAN in calling for the respect
of international legal decisions, external actors help reinforce the legitimacy of the
arbitral ruling and encourage China to comply with the established legal framework. The
involvement of international legal organizations, such as the International Court of
Justice and the Permanent Court of Arbitration, can also provide a neutral platform for
resolving disputes and ensuring that all parties adhere to international norms.

However, the effectiveness of external support in reinforcing ASEAN’s diplomatic efforts

is contingent upon ASEAN’s ability to present a unified front. External powers are more
likely to offer their support if they perceive ASEAN as a cohesive and determined actor
in managing the South China Sea dispute. Therefore, it is essential for ASEAN to
overcome its internal divisions and work towards a common diplomatic strategy that
aligns with the interests of all its member states. This could involve negotiating
compromises between member countries, ensuring that the interests of smaller claimant
states are given due consideration while also accommodating the concerns of larger
members with closer ties to China. A united ASEAN is better positioned to work
alongside external actors to apply diplomatic pressure on China, particularly in
international forums such as the United Nations and regional organizations like the East
Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum.

Beyond diplomatic pressure, ASEAN’s internal unity also enhances its ability to push for
tangible progress in negotiations with China, particularly on the Code of Conduct (COC)
in the South China Sea. The COC, a binding agreement between ASEAN and China,
has long been a key goal of ASEAN’s diplomatic efforts. While progress on the COC
has been slow due to differing priorities among ASEAN members and China’s
reluctance to accept binding obligations, a more unified ASEAN response could
accelerate negotiations and create a stronger bargaining position for the organization. A
coordinated ASEAN stance could push China to make concessions on issues such as
the demilitarization of disputed features and the establishment of communication
mechanisms to prevent conflicts in the region. In addition to the COC, ASEAN’s unity
could facilitate negotiations on other key issues, such as freedom of navigation, marine
environmental protection, and the sustainable use of maritime resources.

The involvement of ASEAN in these negotiations must also be viewed within the context
of its broader regional security goals. ASEAN’s engagement with the South China Sea
dispute is not just about resolving territorial disputes but also about safeguarding
regional stability. The South China Sea is a critical waterway for global trade and a vital
area for regional economic development. Disputes over sovereignty and resource
claims have the potential to disrupt trade routes and destabilize the broader Indo-Pacific
region. By actively engaging in multilateral diplomacy and ensuring that the interests of
all stakeholders are considered, ASEAN can help prevent the escalation of tensions and
avoid a military conflict that would have dire consequences for regional peace and
prosperity. A stable South China Sea is therefore in the best interests of all regional
actors, and ASEAN’s leadership in addressing the dispute is essential for long-term
peace and security.

Despite these challenges, ASEAN’s commitment to a peaceful and rules-based order in

the South China Sea offers a hopeful path forward. Through multilateral diplomacy,
ASEAN can help ensure that the dispute is resolved through dialogue and legal means
rather than military confrontation. The role of external actors in supporting ASEAN’s
efforts to uphold international law and promote regional stability is critical, but ASEAN
itself must take the lead in driving the process forward. This requires overcoming
internal divisions, strengthening regional cooperation, and aligning its actions with the
broader goals of peace, security, and economic development in the Indo-Pacific region.

In conclusion, while ASEAN faces significant challenges in achieving a coordinated

response to the South China Sea dispute, its role as a multilateral platform for regional
diplomacy remains essential. A unified ASEAN, supported by external actors, can play a
pivotal role in holding China accountable for its actions, promoting international law, and
ensuring the long-term stability of the South China Sea. The successful resolution of the
dispute requires not only the commitment of ASEAN member states but also the active
participation of global powers and regional organizations. By working together, ASEAN
and its partners can navigate the complexities of the South China Sea dispute and help
create a more peaceful and stable regional order.

Increased International Support

The role of international powers in the South China Sea dispute has become
increasingly significant in countering China's assertive claims and actions in the region.
The United States, Japan, and Australia, as prominent global actors, have consistently
emphasized the importance of maintaining freedom of navigation, which is vital not only
for regional security but also for the global economy. Their diplomatic, military, and
economic involvement has been instrumental in reinforcing the legitimacy of
international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), which governs maritime rights and territorial disputes.

One of the most visible demonstrations of international support for UNCLOS in the
South China Sea is the United States' Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs).
The U.S. Navy regularly conducts these operations to challenge China’s extensive
territorial claims, particularly in areas where China has undertaken land reclamation or
established military installations on artificial islands. These operations underscore the
commitment of the U.S. to uphold the rights of all nations to navigate freely in
international waters, regardless of conflicting territorial claims. The FONOPs serve not
only as a strategic show of force but also as a statement of the international
community's commitment to a rules-based maritime order (Council on Foreign
Relations, 2024).

The U.S. is not alone in its efforts to safeguard maritime freedoms. Japan and Australia
have also voiced strong support for the principles of UNCLOS and have worked closely
with Southeast Asian nations to promote regional stability. Japan, in particular, has
emphasized the importance of unimpeded access to the South China Sea, given its
reliance on the waterway for trade. As a key maritime power, Japan has sought to
strengthen security partnerships with countries like the Philippines and Vietnam, which
have been more vocal in their opposition to China's claims. Similarly, Australia has
supported initiatives to uphold UNCLOS and has joined naval exercises with other
regional powers to demonstrate its commitment to regional security (Garnaut & Laskai,
2020).
These global powers play a critical role not only through direct military presence and
diplomatic support but also by strengthening the resolve of smaller Southeast Asian
claimant states. Countries such as the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia have
historically been wary of confronting China due to the economic and military
imbalances. However, the backing of larger powers has provided these states with the
confidence to assert their rights under international law. In particular, the Philippines has
relied on U.S. support following its legal victory at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in
2016, which invalidated China’s claim to the so-called "nine-dash line" in the South
China Sea (Davidson, 2021).

While the presence of international powers has been crucial in upholding international
law, the diplomatic and military involvement of these nations is not without challenges.
The risk of escalating tensions with China remains a concern, particularly as Beijing
continues to expand its military infrastructure in the region. Moreover, the growing
geopolitical rivalry between China and the United States further complicates efforts to
maintain a stable and peaceful environment in the South China Sea. For instance,
China views U.S. FONOPs as a violation of its sovereignty and has regularly
condemned them, warning against interference in what it claims as its territorial waters.
Thus, while the involvement of global powers has served to deter some of China’s more
aggressive actions, it has also contributed to the broader power competition in the
Indo-Pacific (Bowers, 2020).

In addition to military operations, these global powers have also provided diplomatic
support to regional states in the form of multilateral engagements. For example, the
United States, Japan, and Australia have supported ASEAN in its efforts to establish a
Code of Conduct (COC) with China, which would regulate activities in the South China
Sea and reduce the potential for conflict. However, the negotiations for a COC have
been slow, with China reluctant to agree to provisions that would constrain its actions.
Despite these challenges, the international community’s continued backing of the COC
and other regional security frameworks sends a strong message to China that it cannot
unilaterally dictate the terms of regional security (Swaine, 2016).

The increased engagement of the U.S., Japan, and Australia in the South China Sea
has been a critical aspect of the international community’s response to China’s
aggressive actions in the region. Joint military exercises, security cooperation initiatives,
and information-sharing mechanisms are central to enhancing the maritime capabilities
of Southeast Asian nations, which face significant challenges in balancing relations with
China while defending their maritime rights. These trilateral initiatives between the U.S.,
Japan, and Australia not only provide direct security assurances to smaller claimant
states but also demonstrate the international community’s collective resolve to prevent
unilateral attempts to alter the status quo in the South China Sea. The presence of
these global powers in the region serves as a counterbalance to China’s growing
influence, particularly in terms of military might.

For example, the trilateral security cooperation has led to joint patrols and coordinated
military exercises designed to strengthen regional defense and enhance the collective
security framework of the Indo-Pacific. These initiatives foster greater interoperability
between the armed forces of the U.S., Japan, Australia, and Southeast Asian nations,
allowing for more effective responses to potential threats. The enhancement of maritime
capabilities is crucial for smaller states, as it provides them with the resources to better
protect their maritime territories and respond to encroachments by a powerful state like
China. This cooperation not only focuses on military preparedness but also emphasizes
the importance of strategic coordination in ensuring freedom of navigation and the
enforcement of UNCLOS, the international legal framework that governs the region’s
maritime disputes.

The importance of these joint security efforts cannot be overstated, particularly given
the increasing militarization of the South China Sea by China. The construction of
military installations on artificial islands, the deployment of advanced surveillance
systems, and the expansion of China’s naval presence are all part of a broader strategy
to assert control over disputed waters. In response, the U.S., Japan, and Australia have
made significant efforts to enhance regional security by conducting joint military drills
and implementing surveillance programs that support freedom of navigation operations
(FONOPs). These actions serve as a reminder to China that its aggressive tactics will
not go unchallenged, and that the international community is committed to maintaining a
rules-based order in the region.

Furthermore, the involvement of these global powers in the South China Sea dispute
provides much-needed diplomatic and military support for smaller claimant states, such
as the Philippines and Vietnam, which face considerable risks when confronting China.
While these countries may be reluctant to challenge China due to its economic and
military dominance, the backing of the U.S., Japan, and Australia gives them greater
confidence in asserting their rights. By reinforcing the legitimacy of international law and
promoting multilateral diplomatic efforts, these powers help to ensure that smaller states
are not left isolated in the face of Chinese coercion. Their involvement serves as a form
of protection, demonstrating that the region’s security is of global concern and not just a
bilateral issue between China and its neighbors.

Moreover, the coordination among the U.S., Japan, and Australia in supporting
Southeast Asian nations’ maritime rights is a vital aspect of multilateral diplomacy in the
Indo-Pacific. These efforts underscore the importance of a collective approach to
regional security that involves both diplomatic and military dimensions. In addition to
joint exercises and security cooperation, these countries actively participate in
multilateral forums such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the East Asia
Summit (EAS), where they promote dialogue on maritime security issues and
encourage adherence to international law. Their participation in these forums signals to
China and other regional actors that the rule of law is a central tenet of the international
community’s approach to the South China Sea.

In this context, the combined efforts of the U.S., Japan, and Australia have been
instrumental in reinforcing the legitimacy of UNCLOS and ensuring that smaller claimant
states are empowered to pursue legal avenues for dispute resolution. While legal
challenges, such as the Philippines’ victory in the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration
ruling, are crucial, they are often undermined by China’s refusal to comply with
international rulings. In such cases, the support of global powers can help ensure that
the principles enshrined in UNCLOS are not eroded by a lack of enforcement
mechanisms. By taking a proactive role in supporting international law, these powers
contribute to the credibility of the international legal order and serve as a deterrent to
any state that seeks to undermine it.

Despite the importance of military and diplomatic support, the risks of escalation remain
a significant concern in the South China Sea. As China continues to assert its
dominance in the region, there is always the potential for increased tensions or even
military confrontations. However, the collective presence of global powers such as the
U.S., Japan, and Australia plays a crucial role in managing these risks by providing a
counterbalance to China’s aggressive actions. Their engagement helps to ensure that
the South China Sea remains a focal point for multilateral diplomacy and that the
region’s stability is not compromised by unilateral actions that threaten peace and
security.

As the South China Sea dispute continues to evolve, the role of international actors in
reinforcing the legitimacy of international law and promoting regional stability will be
increasingly important. The combined efforts of the U.S., Japan, and Australia, along
with other regional powers and organizations, can help to mitigate the risks posed by
China’s assertive maritime policies. By continuing to strengthen their security
cooperation and diplomatic engagement in the region, these countries can help ensure
that the South China Sea remains a space governed by the rule of law, where the rights
of all nations are respected, and conflicts are resolved through peaceful means.

Public Diplomacy and Advocacy

Public diplomacy and advocacy play an essential role in shaping global opinion and
encouraging accountability in the South China Sea dispute. As smaller claimant states
face the challenge of balancing their interests with a powerful neighbor like China,
raising awareness about the legal and environmental consequences of the dispute can
generate international pressure for a peaceful resolution. Public diplomacy efforts help
draw attention to the adverse effects of China’s actions, not only on the sovereignty of
smaller nations but also on the broader regional and global environment.

The Philippines, in particular, has been at the forefront of diplomatic efforts to draw
international attention to the significance of the 2016 ruling issued by the Permanent
Court of Arbitration (PCA). The ruling, which invalidated China’s extensive claims in the
South China Sea based on the "nine-dash line," provided a legal victory for the
Philippines and other Southeast Asian claimants. However, despite its legal victory, the
Philippines has faced significant challenges in enforcing the ruling, as China continues
to assert its control over disputed areas, particularly in the face of its growing military
and economic influence. In response, the Philippines has used various international
forums, including the United Nations (UN), to advocate for the recognition of the ruling
and to highlight the importance of upholding international law (Davidson, 2021).

Public diplomacy efforts have not been limited to legal arguments alone. Advocacy
initiatives have increasingly focused on the environmental impact of China’s
island-building activities in the South China Sea. These activities, which involve
extensive land reclamation and the construction of military outposts on artificial islands,
have had devastating effects on the marine ecosystems in the region. The destruction
of coral reefs and the alteration of underwater topography have disrupted vital marine
biodiversity, threatening the livelihoods of local fishing communities and the broader
marine food chain. Advocacy groups and smaller claimant states have used this
environmental damage as a powerful tool to galvanize international support and
highlight the broader consequences of China’s actions.

One of the most significant aspects of the environmental advocacy surrounding the
South China Sea is the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
environmental groups in raising awareness about the issue. These organizations have
conducted research, documented environmental degradation, and published reports
that have been widely disseminated to global audiences. The combination of legal
arguments and environmental concerns has helped build a more comprehensive
narrative about the South China Sea dispute, making it harder for international actors to
ignore the broader implications of China’s actions. As the world becomes more attuned
to issues of environmental sustainability, the South China Sea dispute presents an
opportunity to highlight how the pursuit of geopolitical dominance can come at the
expense of global ecological health (Crisis Group, 2024).

Furthermore, the involvement of the international community through public diplomacy

initiatives is vital in ensuring that China faces global scrutiny for its actions in the region.
Countries such as the United States, Japan, and Australia, alongside regional
organizations like ASEAN, have played a key role in supporting smaller claimant states
by amplifying their concerns on international platforms. By publicly endorsing the 2016
PCA ruling and calling for China’s compliance, these nations have added weight to the
diplomatic efforts of the Philippines and others. The collective condemnation of China's
behavior in the South China Sea, especially with regards to the environmental damage
caused by its artificial island-building, helps to frame the dispute not only as a territorial
conflict but also as a global environmental crisis (Bowers, 2020).

The Philippines has also used public diplomacy to engage the broader Southeast Asian
region in discussions about the South China Sea. By emphasizing the collective
regional interest in preserving the freedom of navigation and the protection of marine
resources, the Philippines has sought to build a coalition of countries that share
concerns about China’s actions. This strategy aims to create a regional consensus that
can put pressure on China to adhere to international law and respect the rights of
smaller nations. The support of countries that are not directly involved in the dispute,
such as Indonesia and Malaysia, can play a crucial role in strengthening the overall
diplomatic position of the claimants (Garnaut & Laskai, 2020).

Public diplomacy plays a crucial role in shaping global opinion and influencing the
outcome of the South China Sea dispute, particularly as smaller claimant states
continue to face mounting pressure from China. The challenge for these countries lies in
navigating a complex web of regional and international relationships, balancing their ties
with China while also seeking support from external powers like the United States,
Japan, and Australia. The risk of alienating China while advocating for their rights
creates a delicate diplomatic balancing act, especially for nations like Cambodia and
Laos, which maintain strong economic ties with Beijing. These countries, which have
benefited from China’s investments and trade relationships, may be reluctant to publicly
oppose China’s actions in the South China Sea, fearing negative repercussions for their
economies and diplomatic relations.

However, the growing recognition of the environmental and legal implications of the
dispute provides an opportunity for these nations to engage in constructive dialogue and
contribute to a broader regional strategy. As the environmental damage caused by
China’s island-building activities continues to unfold, there is increasing pressure on all
ASEAN members, even those with close ties to China, to acknowledge the long-term
consequences for regional marine ecosystems. This growing awareness can help
create a more unified ASEAN approach, one that encourages diplomatic engagement
without necessarily sacrificing national interests. Public diplomacy efforts must therefore
be carefully crafted to appeal to both domestic and international audiences, promoting
the benefits of a peaceful, rules-based resolution while also emphasizing the risks of
continued Chinese expansion in the region.

Furthermore, public diplomacy is an essential tool for amplifying the legal arguments
surrounding the South China Sea dispute. Advocacy groups, as well as government
representatives from claimant states, can use international platforms to highlight the
significance of the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling, which invalidated
China’s extensive claims in the South China Sea. This ruling, while legally binding, has
been largely ignored by China, which continues to assert its rights over vast portions of
the sea. Public diplomacy efforts that bring attention to this ruling can help bolster the
international community’s support for smaller states, especially when these efforts are
backed by clear, factual information about the legal and environmental stakes of the
dispute. Through sustained advocacy, smaller states can strengthen their position and
encourage international actors to hold China accountable for its defiance of international
law.

In addition to highlighting legal victories, public diplomacy can also underscore the
environmental consequences of China’s actions. The construction of artificial islands,
the destruction of coral reefs, and the disruption of marine biodiversity have all been
significant outcomes of China’s activities in the South China Sea. These actions not
only affect the claimant states but have far-reaching implications for the region’s
environmental health and global climate stability. Public diplomacy that emphasizes the
ecological impact of these developments can garner international sympathy and
increase pressure on China to comply with international environmental norms and
agreements. By framing the dispute in terms of environmental stewardship and the
collective responsibility of the international community to protect the oceans, smaller
states can generate broader support for their positions.

Advocacy efforts in the South China Sea also require strategic use of international
media and diplomacy to shape the narrative around the dispute. Media coverage,
academic studies, and expert reports can all serve to amplify the legal, environmental,
and geopolitical dimensions of the issue. Countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, and
Malaysia, which are at the forefront of opposing China’s claims, have already used
international forums and media outlets to highlight their perspectives and gain support.
The success of these efforts depends on their ability to frame the dispute not just as a
regional issue but as one with global implications for international law, maritime security,
and environmental sustainability. By building a compelling case on these fronts, public
diplomacy can help secure a more favorable international response to China’s actions.

In addition to raising awareness of the legal and environmental stakes, public diplomacy
can also play a vital role in fostering solidarity among smaller claimant states. As these
nations face similar challenges in defending their maritime rights, their collective efforts
can create a more cohesive stance on the issue. ASEAN, despite its internal divisions,
can serve as a platform for promoting these efforts, with member states supporting one
another’s claims and advocating for a unified approach to the South China Sea dispute.
Public diplomacy can help bridge divides within ASEAN, encouraging cooperation
between states that may have different economic interests but share common concerns
about regional stability and the preservation of maritime law.

For instance, the Philippines has actively used diplomatic channels to garner
international support for the 2016 PCA ruling, emphasizing its legal victory as a means
of reinforcing the rule of law in the region. Similarly, Vietnam has been vocal in
international forums, presenting evidence of Chinese violations of international law and
environmental damage in the South China Sea. These advocacy efforts serve not only
to raise awareness but to create a diplomatic framework that supports the rights of
smaller states while calling attention to the broader implications of China’s actions.

Public diplomacy must also be coupled with practical measures, such as

capacity-building initiatives for legal and environmental expertise. For example,
providing training for diplomats and legal experts in maritime law can help smaller
claimant states navigate the complex landscape of international arbitration and dispute
resolution. By strengthening their legal capabilities, these countries can better defend
their claims in international courts and other legal forums. Additionally, fostering
partnerships with international organizations focused on environmental protection, such
as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), can help address the
ecological aspects of the dispute and ensure that China’s environmental violations are
properly documented and condemned.

Moreover, public diplomacy can serve as a tool for international advocacy, drawing
attention to the failure of the international community to enforce international law. The
lack of enforcement mechanisms in UNCLOS means that legal rulings, such as the
2016 PCA decision, are often disregarded by powerful states like China without
significant repercussions. Advocacy efforts that highlight this gap in the international
legal framework can help spur discussions on reforming enforcement mechanisms,
ensuring that international rulings are not merely symbolic but have practical
consequences for states that violate them.

The role of global organizations, such as the United Nations, in supporting public
diplomacy and advocacy is also critical. As the global governance body responsible for
maintaining international peace and security, the UN can provide a platform for claimant
states to present their cases and generate wider international support. Through UN
resolutions, special reports, and the involvement of specialized agencies like the
International Maritime Organization (IMO), the international community can be mobilized
to address the legal and environmental challenges posed by China’s actions in the
South China Sea.

Strengthening Regional Legal Capacity

The South China Sea dispute is a complex and high-stakes issue that involves multiple
countries, intricate legal frameworks, and significant geopolitical tensions. Smaller
claimant states in the region, such as the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia, face
considerable challenges in asserting their rights and pursuing legal avenues due to the
power imbalance between them and China. One critical strategy for empowering these
countries is strengthening their legal capacity. This involves enhancing the ability of
smaller states to navigate the complex legal landscape, pursue international arbitration,
and effectively advocate for their maritime rights under frameworks like the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first step in building legal capacity is ensuring that diplomats and legal experts in
these smaller claimant states are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to
handle maritime disputes. Training programs and specialized legal education are
essential for developing expertise in international maritime law, particularly in areas
relevant to the South China Sea, such as territorial disputes, the legal status of artificial
islands, and the rights to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). By fostering a cadre of
legal professionals who are well-versed in the nuances of international law, these
countries can approach legal challenges with greater confidence and competence. This
specialized training also enables them to better communicate their legal arguments in
international forums and negotiate with other nations on equal footing (Tan, 2019).
In addition to building expertise within individual countries, strengthening regional legal
capacity also involves creating networks of legal professionals who can collaborate and
share knowledge. Regional partnerships, such as those between ASEAN member
states, can foster a sense of solidarity and collective action when pursuing legal
avenues. By working together, smaller claimant states can pool resources, share
expertise, and present a united front in legal disputes, which is critical when challenging
a powerful country like China. Furthermore, regional collaboration enhances the ability
of these countries to navigate complex legal procedures and take coordinated actions in
international courts or tribunals (Li & Zhang, 2021).

Another important aspect of strengthening legal capacity is improving access to

arbitration mechanisms. UNCLOS provides a legal framework for resolving maritime
disputes through mechanisms like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
(ITLOS) or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). However, many smaller claimant
states face challenges in utilizing these mechanisms effectively, whether due to a lack of
financial resources, limited legal expertise, or concerns about the potential diplomatic
consequences of pursuing arbitration. To address these barriers, regional initiatives
aimed at increasing access to these mechanisms could be crucial. For instance,
creating a regional fund or financial assistance programs could help defray the costs
associated with legal proceedings. Additionally, offering technical assistance in
navigating the complex procedural requirements of arbitration could enhance the
effectiveness of smaller states' legal strategies (Swaine, 2016).

Furthermore, fostering partnerships with international legal organizations can

significantly enhance the legal capacity of smaller claimant states. International bodies,
such as the UN and various NGOs focused on maritime law, can offer expertise,
technical support, and advocacy that bolster the legal efforts of smaller states. These
organizations can help countries understand the intricacies of maritime law, improve
their advocacy skills in international forums, and ensure that their claims are heard in
global discussions. By establishing stronger relationships with these international
entities, smaller states can gain access to additional resources, such as expert legal
counsel or advocacy platforms, which are often necessary when facing off against a
powerful state like China (Garnaut & Laskai, 2020).

Building legal capacity also involves increasing the political will of regional states to
prioritize legal mechanisms over other methods of dispute resolution, such as military
force or bilateral negotiations. In many cases, smaller states may be hesitant to pursue
legal avenues due to the fear of angering China, which has the potential to retaliate
economically or militarily. To overcome this hesitation, it is crucial to create a political
environment where the rule of law is prioritized, and the benefits of legal resolution are
clearly demonstrated. Public diplomacy efforts and advocacy campaigns can highlight
the successes of legal mechanisms, such as the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration
ruling in favor of the Philippines, as a way to demonstrate that legal channels can yield
successful outcomes even against powerful adversaries (Davidson, 2021).

In parallel, regional legal capacity-building should also focus on improving the

understanding and application of international environmental law. Given the
environmental damage caused by China’s activities in the South China Sea, such as the
destruction of coral reefs and marine ecosystems through land reclamation,
strengthening the ability of claimant states to address environmental issues through
legal channels is critical. International environmental law, including frameworks like the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), can provide an avenue for addressing the
ecological consequences of China’s actions in the region. By developing expertise in
this area, smaller states can raise awareness about environmental degradation and
seek redress through international legal mechanisms (Crisis Group, 2024).

The strengthening of regional legal capacity plays a pivotal role in fostering broader
regional stability and cooperation in Southeast Asia. By investing in legal education and
enhancing expertise, Southeast Asian countries can cultivate a culture of respect for
international law, which can help reduce the likelihood of resolving disputes through
force or coercion. This culture of legal cooperation is essential in creating a more stable
security environment, one where states prioritize diplomacy, legal frameworks, and
peaceful conflict resolution over military escalation. Over time, such efforts can lead to a
predictable and peaceful regional order that benefits not only the claimant states but
also other countries within the Indo-Pacific region and globally.

A key component in this process is the establishment of dedicated legal teams or

maritime task forces within government institutions, focusing specifically on the South
China Sea dispute. These specialized bodies would be tasked with developing legal
strategies, representing their countries in international forums, and providing advice on
policy decisions regarding maritime issues. The formation of such task forces ensures
that maritime disputes are handled by experts who can navigate the complexities of
international law and provide well-informed counsel on various actions, from arbitration
to diplomatic negotiations. By focusing on building legal expertise within government
institutions, countries can ensure that maritime disputes are addressed with the
necessary depth of understanding and legal acumen.

In this regard, it is essential for smaller claimant states to engage in long-term efforts to
bolster legal capacity. This requires a continuous commitment from both national
governments and regional organizations, as the strengthening of legal institutions,
training experts, and enhancing access to international arbitration mechanisms cannot
be accomplished quickly. For instance, Southeast Asian countries could benefit from
engaging with international legal organizations such as the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) to enhance their knowledge and
experience in dealing with maritime disputes (Borg, 2020). Additionally, regional
organizations like ASEAN could support collaborative initiatives to establish legal
networks and provide resources for capacity-building activities (Nguyen, 2022).

Moreover, these legal capacity-building efforts must remain adaptable to new

developments in both international law and regional power dynamics. As the South
China Sea dispute evolves, the legal strategies and frameworks adopted by claimant
states must evolve with it, ensuring that their legal capacities remain relevant and
effective. This adaptability is particularly important in addressing emerging challenges
such as shifting alliances, changing economic interests, and the growing influence of
major powers like China in the region.

Strengthening the legal capacity of smaller claimant states in the South China Sea is
crucial for empowering them to effectively pursue legal remedies and assert their rights
under international law. This can be achieved through comprehensive training
programs, improved access to international arbitration mechanisms, and the
establishment of strategic partnerships with international legal organizations. For
example, countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam, which are directly involved in
the dispute, could enhance their legal capacities by establishing close collaborations
with universities and research centers that specialize in international law and maritime
disputes (Chau, 2023). By increasing their legal knowledge and ensuring they have
access to the necessary legal tools, these countries will be better equipped to protect
their maritime rights and counter any challenges posed by more powerful nations.

Ultimately, building legal capacity is not only about enhancing legal expertise but also
about promoting a culture of diplomacy, cooperation, and respect for the rule of law in
the region. By prioritizing the rule of law and multilateral legal frameworks, Southeast
Asia can strengthen its collective ability to address disputes peacefully and contribute to
long-term peace and stability. This, in turn, can ensure that regional conflicts are
addressed in accordance with established legal norms, thereby fostering a more secure
and cooperative regional order (Tan, 2021).
Chapter 5: Conclusion

The South China Sea dispute serves as a crucial case study for understanding the
complexities of international relations, particularly when it comes to managing territorial
disputes within the context of legal norms and sovereign rights. While the dispute itself
is primarily a regional issue, its implications are global in scope, illustrating how power
dynamics can often overshadow legal frameworks and challenge the efficacy of
international law. The conflict highlights the ongoing tension between legal principles
and the geopolitics of regional dominance, with the South China Sea functioning as a
microcosm of broader international challenges in balancing law, sovereignty, and power.

The ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in 2016 was a watershed
moment in the South China Sea dispute. The court’s decision that China’s sweeping
Nine-Dash Line claims were without legal merit was based on principles outlined in the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which provides a legal
framework for resolving maritime disputes. The ruling emphasized the importance of
adhering to established legal norms, particularly those concerning the rights of coastal
states and the use of maritime resources. For smaller claimant states such as the
Philippines, the PCA ruling represented a critical affirmation that international law could
offer protection against larger, more powerful neighbors. It underscored the principle of
legal equality, asserting that all states, regardless of their size or military power, are
entitled to equal rights and obligations under international law.

The decision reinforced the idea that territorial disputes should be resolved through
legal and diplomatic means, rather than through coercion or force. This provided a
crucial avenue for smaller states to assert their sovereignty over disputed territories,
helping to level the playing field between weaker and stronger states. The PCA ruling
also aligned with broader international efforts to promote peace and stability in the
region, as it provided a legal framework for addressing the competing claims in a way
that emphasized diplomacy, arbitration, and respect for international law.

However, the South China Sea dispute and the PCA ruling also highlighted significant
weaknesses within the international legal system, particularly in its ability to enforce its
decisions. Despite the legal clarity provided by the ruling, China’s steadfast rejection of
the court’s findings revealed the limitations of international law when enforcement
mechanisms are weak or absent. China’s refusal to recognize the PCA decision and its
continued assertive actions in the South China Sea, including militarization of disputed
features, land reclamation, and economic coercion, exposed the gap between legal
norms and the geopolitical realities that drive state behavior.

In international law, compliance with legal rulings is often voluntary, relying on states’
willingness to adhere to principles that may not align with their national interests or
strategic goals. In the case of the South China Sea, China’s refusal to comply with the
PCA ruling demonstrated how powerful states can disregard international law if they
perceive it to be against their interests. This presents a fundamental challenge to the
international legal system: without a global authority or enforcement mechanism to
compel compliance, legal rulings are only as effective as the collective will of the
international community to support them.

The situation in the South China Sea thus underscores the importance of not only
having robust legal frameworks but also ensuring that these frameworks are backed by
strong mechanisms for enforcement and accountability. The absence of such
mechanisms often leaves smaller states vulnerable to the actions of larger, more
powerful nations. This imbalance is further exacerbated by the growing strategic and
military competition in the Indo-Pacific region, where countries like China are able to
leverage their economic and military power to assert territorial claims, regardless of
legal considerations.

The international community’s response to China’s actions in the South China Sea has
been varied, with some states, particularly those within ASEAN and the United States,
advocating for stronger adherence to international law and supporting the Philippines’
position in the dispute. Yet, there is also a recognition that achieving meaningful
enforcement of international legal rulings requires a coordinated and sustained
diplomatic effort from a diverse set of actors. This includes not only regional powers but
also global powers that have a vested interest in maintaining stability in the Indo-Pacific
region, such as the United States, Japan, Australia, and the European Union.

The role of regional organizations, particularly ASEAN, is crucial in addressing the

power imbalance in the South China Sea. While ASEAN has faced challenges in
presenting a unified front due to internal divisions and varying degrees of economic
dependence on China, it remains an important platform for dialogue and diplomacy.
ASEAN’s collective approach to regional security, based on principles of
non-interference and peaceful dispute resolution, provides a framework for managing
the South China Sea dispute. However, for ASEAN to be more effective, it must
overcome its internal differences and develop a more cohesive and coordinated
strategy for engaging with China and other external actors.

In addition to diplomatic efforts, multilateral mechanisms such as the Code of Conduct

(COC) in the South China Sea can play a key role in promoting stability and preventing
conflict. The COC aims to establish rules for behavior in the South China Sea, including
provisions for dispute resolution and conflict prevention. While progress on the COC
has been slow, a more unified ASEAN stance, supported by external partners, could
help accelerate negotiations and create a stronger bargaining position against China. A
well-crafted and enforceable COC would provide an important legal framework for
managing tensions and promoting cooperation among claimants.

The South China Sea dispute also highlights the broader question of global governance
and the need for stronger mechanisms to enforce international law. In the absence of a
global authority with the power to enforce legal rulings, the international community
must rely on diplomatic efforts and collective action to hold states accountable for
violations of international law. This requires not only political will but also the
development of new mechanisms for ensuring compliance with legal decisions and
protecting the rights of smaller and less powerful states.

Ultimately, the South China Sea dispute serves as a stark reminder of the challenges
facing international law in an era of shifting power dynamics. While legal frameworks
such as UNCLOS provide a vital foundation for resolving disputes, the effectiveness of
these frameworks is limited by the unwillingness of powerful states to comply with
rulings that do not align with their national interests. The dispute also underscores the
need for greater efforts to strengthen the enforcement of international law, particularly in
regions where power imbalances threaten regional stability. Until such mechanisms are
developed, the South China Sea will likely remain a contentious and complex issue,
with the ongoing struggle between legal norms and geopolitical realities shaping the
future of international relations in the Indo-Pacific.

The divide between legal principles and real-world practices in international relations
raises significant concerns about the effectiveness of the Rule of Law in global
governance. International legal frameworks like the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) are designed to provide clarity and legitimacy for managing
maritime disputes, offering a structured approach to resolving conflicts. However, the
success of these legal instruments depends on the willingness of states to comply with
their provisions. As Beckman (2013) highlighted, the effectiveness of international law is
closely tied to state cooperation and the international community’s collective response
to violations. Without a unified and consistent approach, especially when dealing with
powerful states like China, the credibility of the Rule of Law in international relations
becomes increasingly precarious.

China’s actions in the South China Sea underscore the challenges facing international
law, particularly when a powerful state outright rejects legal rulings that are not aligned
with its national interests. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling in 2016,
which invalidated China’s Nine-Dash Line claims, was a significant victory for
international law, but China’s defiance of the ruling has exposed the limitations of the
international legal system. By rejecting the PCA decision, China demonstrated its
unwillingness to be bound by international law when it conflicts with its strategic
objectives. Furthermore, China’s intensification of territorial claims, the militarization of
artificial islands, and the establishment of administrative regions in disputed waters
have created a volatile situation in the South China Sea, further undermining the
authority of international legal frameworks.

The militarization of artificial islands and harassment of foreign vessels in contested

waters have not only escalated tensions in the region but also posed a direct challenge
to the international order. These actions are a stark reminder of the difficulties that arise
when one party to a dispute possesses disproportionate economic, political, and military
power, allowing it to resist both legal rulings and diplomatic pressure. In such contexts,
the gap between legal principles and the realpolitik of power dynamics becomes
evident, complicating efforts to resolve conflicts through peaceful means. The presence
of significant military force, combined with China’s economic leverage, makes it difficult
for smaller states to assert their rights and challenge Chinese actions effectively.

Despite these obstacles, the Rule of Law remains a cornerstone of the international
system, offering a framework for fairness and equity in addressing disputes. For smaller
states, such as the Philippines, international law provides an important avenue for
counterbalancing the influence of larger powers like China. By invoking legal principles,
states like the Philippines can challenge the actions of more powerful neighbors and
assert their sovereign rights over contested territories. In this sense, the Rule of Law
offers a crucial tool for smaller states to protect their interests and uphold their rights in
the face of more dominant powers.

The Philippines' diplomatic strategy in response to the South China Sea dispute
exemplifies how international law can be leveraged to strengthen a state’s position.
Following the PCA ruling, the Philippines has increasingly referenced international law
in its diplomatic engagements, reinforcing its claims to maritime rights in the South
China Sea. By using the legal backing of the PCA decision, the Philippines has been
able to secure support from other nations that prioritize a rules-based order, enhancing
its leverage in multilateral forums such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) and the United Nations. The Philippine government's emphasis on legal
solutions, rather than military confrontation, has contributed to a broader regional
discourse that champions the peaceful resolution of disputes through dialogue,
negotiation, and adherence to international law.

In multilateral forums, the Philippines has successfully garnered support from other
countries that share its commitment to the Rule of Law. By aligning itself with other
nations that advocate for a rules-based international order, the Philippines has bolstered
its position in the ongoing struggle for control over the South China Sea. This
cooperation has extended to both regional actors, like ASEAN members, and
extra-regional powers such as the United States, Japan, and Australia, which have
expressed concern over China’s assertive actions. In this way, the Philippines' reliance
on international law has helped to galvanize broader international support for its stance,
contributing to a more unified response to China’s growing influence in the region.

However, the challenges to the Rule of Law in the South China Sea are far from
resolved. The continued defiance of China, coupled with the absence of robust
enforcement mechanisms in international law, means that legal rulings remain
vulnerable to non-compliance. China’s ongoing actions, including its expansion of
military facilities and its economic influence over regional states, complicate the
situation further. In many ways, these actions highlight the limitations of international law
when faced with state power that is not easily deterred by legal or diplomatic pressure.
As Beckman (2013) argued, the effectiveness of international law in resolving disputes
ultimately depends on the willingness of states to cooperate and the ability of the
international community to collectively hold violators accountable.

One of the key challenges in enforcing the Rule of Law in the South China Sea is the
lack of a central enforcement authority with the power to compel states to comply with
legal rulings. Unlike domestic legal systems, where courts can enforce judgments
through coercive means, the international legal system relies heavily on state
cooperation and diplomatic pressure to enforce rulings. This makes it difficult to achieve
compliance in situations where powerful states, like China, are determined to pursue
their own interests regardless of legal constraints. In such cases, the Rule of Law often
faces significant challenges in maintaining its credibility and effectiveness.
In the absence of strong enforcement mechanisms, the international community must
continue to rely on diplomatic efforts and multilateral cooperation to uphold the Rule of
Law. This includes supporting international legal rulings, fostering dialogue between
disputing parties, and encouraging compliance with international norms. For smaller
states in the South China Sea, such as the Philippines, maintaining a diplomatic
approach based on legal principles is essential in balancing the power disparity
between them and China. By consistently invoking the Rule of Law and securing the
support of international partners, these smaller states can help to create a broader
coalition that encourages China to respect international legal rulings.

The ongoing dispute in the South China Sea also serves as a reminder of the need for
stronger international mechanisms to address violations of international law. While legal
frameworks like UNCLOS provide a foundation for resolving maritime disputes, the lack
of effective enforcement mechanisms means that compliance with legal rulings is not
guaranteed. Strengthening the enforcement of international law, perhaps through the
establishment of new international institutions or the strengthening of existing ones,
would be critical in ensuring that legal principles are not undermined by the actions of
powerful states. Until such mechanisms are put in place, the international legal system
will remain vulnerable to manipulation by those with the power to defy legal rulings
without facing meaningful consequences.

The Philippines has been steadfast in its use of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to support its claims in the South China Sea, leveraging this
legal framework to highlight the importance of fairness, equity, and respect for
international norms. By invoking UNCLOS, the Philippines has positioned itself as a
proponent of the Rule of Law, seeking not only to protect its own maritime rights but
also to promote the broader principle of justice in the region. This legal approach has
garnered substantial moral and diplomatic backing from the global community,
reinforcing the Philippines’ stance on the importance of a rules-based international
order. In doing so, it has succeeded in gaining support from other nations that prioritize
international law over the forceful assertion of territorial claims.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling in 2016, which invalidated China’s
Nine-Dash Line claims, significantly bolstered the Philippines’ legal position. This ruling
was not only a victory for the Philippines but also underscored the global importance of
the South China Sea dispute. The PCA’s decision reaffirmed the principles of UNCLOS
and highlighted the need for stronger mechanisms to enforce international legal norms.
It also served as a reminder that the legitimacy of territorial claims in the South China
Sea should be based on established legal frameworks, rather than unilateral assertions
of power. The global significance of the ruling reinforced the idea that the South China
Sea is not just a regional issue but one with broader implications for international law
and security.

However, despite the PCA ruling, challenges remain in ensuring compliance with legal
decisions. China’s rejection of the ruling, combined with its ongoing militarization of
disputed areas, has raised questions about the enforceability of international law. In the
absence of a central enforcement body, international law’s success largely relies on the
collective will of states to uphold legal principles and hold violators accountable. This
situation underscores the importance of collective action, not only to challenge China’s
defiance of the PCA ruling but also to reinforce the Rule of Law as the guiding
framework for resolving disputes. States and regional organizations must work together
to create a diplomatic and legal environment that discourages unilateral actions and
upholds international norms.

Strengthening cooperation among states is essential for ensuring that the Rule of Law
prevails over the pursuit of unilateral actions. A coordinated response from the
international community is necessary to create a robust diplomatic framework that can
deter violations of international law. This includes promoting adherence to international
agreements like UNCLOS and ensuring that all states, regardless of their power or size,
are held to the same legal standards. The South China Sea dispute highlights the need
for enhanced multilateral engagement, as regional and global actors must work together
to address the challenges posed by powerful states that attempt to sidestep
international legal frameworks.
Moreover, the need for stronger enforcement mechanisms in international law cannot be
overstated. While legal rulings and diplomatic efforts are crucial, the lack of an
enforcement mechanism within the international legal system means that states can, at
times, act with impunity. This is especially true in situations where there are significant
power disparities, as in the case of China’s behavior in the South China Sea. Without
the ability to compel compliance, international law’s influence is often limited to
persuasion and diplomatic pressure. As such, enhancing international enforcement
mechanisms, whether through existing institutions or the creation of new bodies, could
help improve the credibility and effectiveness of legal rulings in the future.

Despite these difficulties, the South China Sea dispute underscores the continued
relevance and importance of legal principles in managing international conflicts. While
enforcement may be challenging, the Rule of Law provides an essential framework for
dialogue, negotiation, and resolution. It sets clear expectations and obligations that
guide state behavior, offering a pathway for states to address disputes without resorting
to violence or coercion. In this way, international law serves as a tool for promoting
peace and stability, even in the absence of immediate enforcement.

For smaller states, like the Philippines, this framework is particularly crucial.
International law provides these states with a means to assert their rights on an equal
footing with larger, more powerful nations. By emphasizing fairness and equity, the Rule
of Law ensures that smaller states are not marginalized or coerced into accepting
territorial claims that violate their sovereign rights. In the South China Sea dispute, the
Philippines has used international law to assert its claims and protect its maritime
interests, despite China’s superior economic and military power. This demonstrates the
importance of legal frameworks in leveling the playing field and giving smaller states the
tools they need to protect their rights.

The implications of the South China Sea dispute extend far beyond the claimant states,
underscoring its global significance. The region is a vital route for international trade,
with over $3.4 trillion worth of goods passing through annually. This highlights the South
China Sea’s importance to the global economy, linking markets in Asia, Europe, and
North America. Any disruptions to this trade route could severely impact global supply
chains, economic stability, and energy security. Thus, ensuring freedom of navigation in
the South China Sea is essential for both regional stability and global economic
resilience.

China’s actions, including restricting access to disputed waters and harassing vessels
from other states, challenge these global interests. These actions violate the principles
of freedom of navigation outlined in UNCLOS, as China seeks to assert control over
critical maritime routes. This has sparked opposition from the United States, Japan, and
Australia, who emphasize the need to preserve a rules-based maritime order. As Kaplan
(2014) noted, the stakes in the South China Sea go beyond territorial disputes and
touch on core global governance principles.

ASEAN plays a critical role in addressing the South China Sea dispute, as its members
advocate for peace, stability, and adherence to international law. However, ASEAN's
ability to act decisively is limited by internal divisions and varying priorities among
member states. Countries like Vietnam and the Philippines, with active territorial
disputes with China, push for stronger actions, while others with closer ties to Beijing,
such as Cambodia and Laos, are more hesitant. Strengthening ASEAN’s unity and
commitment to a rules-based order is crucial for effective action.

Despite these challenges, ASEAN has made progress in facilitating dialogue among
stakeholders. Initiatives like the ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in
the South China Sea (DOC) and ongoing negotiations for a Code of Conduct (COC)
show efforts to manage tensions and establish norms for behavior in disputed areas.
While these frameworks are imperfect, they provide a foundation for further
engagement. Thayer (2021) argues that enhancing ASEAN’s cohesion through greater
economic and political integration would strengthen its ability to advocate for
international law and regional stability.
The involvement of major powers, especially the United States and its allies, adds an
important dimension to the dispute. Through Freedom of Navigation Operations
(FONOPs) and joint military exercises, these countries aim to deter China’s
assertiveness and reaffirm their commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. FONOPs
serve as symbolic demonstrations of adherence to international law, challenging China’s
excessive claims and reinforcing the principle that no state can restrict access to
international waters. These actions send a strong message to Beijing that the
international community will not tolerate unilateral attempts to change the status quo.

However, the presence of external powers also risks escalating tensions. While their
involvement provides support to smaller states like the Philippines, it may also heighten
the potential for conflict. Military posturing, including close encounters between vessels
or aircraft in contested waters, could lead to miscalculations and broader confrontations.
Bateman (2015) stresses the importance of balancing deterrence with diplomacy to
avoid undermining efforts to de-escalate the situation.

To mitigate these risks, regional and global stakeholders must prioritize dialogue and
cooperation. Confidence-building measures, such as agreements on preventing
incidents at sea, can help reduce the likelihood of conflict while fostering an
environment conducive to negotiation. Multilateral forums like the East Asia Summit
(EAS) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) provide platforms for addressing the
dispute through consensus-building, complementing efforts to enforce international law
and uphold a rules-based order.

The South China Sea’s economic and strategic significance has led to new partnerships
among regional and external actors. For example, the Quad (comprising the United
States, Japan, India, and Australia) has emphasized the importance of maritime security
and the rule of law in the Indo-Pacific. Joint efforts like patrols, intelligence-sharing, and
capacity-building initiatives strengthen the collective response to security threats and
the international maritime governance framework.

For the Philippines, the challenge of balancing its maritime rights in the South China
Sea with constructive relationships with major global powers, especially China, is a
delicate and ongoing diplomatic exercise. Located at the crossroads of competing
regional and global pressures, the Philippines finds itself in a unique position where it
must navigate its national interests against the backdrop of broader geopolitical
dynamics. On one hand, the Philippines has long relied on its security and defense
alliances with countries like the United States, which provide crucial protection against
external threats. On the other hand, it also acknowledges China’s significance as a
major trading partner and a central player in the regional economic landscape. This
duality shapes the Philippines' foreign policy, which seeks to combine strategic alliances
and economic cooperation with China in a way that maintains its sovereignty and legal
rights in the South China Sea.

At the heart of the Philippines’ strategy is its recognition of the importance of

international law in asserting its maritime claims. The 2016 ruling from the Permanent
Court of Arbitration (PCA), which invalidated China’s expansive Nine-Dash Line claims
in the South China Sea, has become a cornerstone of the Philippines’ diplomatic
approach. This legal victory not only affirmed the Philippines’ maritime rights under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but it also provided a
strong foundation for its position in international forums. By invoking this ruling, the
Philippines has been able to emphasize the importance of a rules-based order, where
disputes are resolved through legal mechanisms rather than military force or coercion.
The PCA ruling also strengthens the Philippines' case for the global community’s
support in upholding international law, providing a diplomatic framework through which it
can seek to address the dispute.

While legal advocacy plays a critical role, the Philippines recognizes that it cannot rely
solely on legal instruments to resolve the dispute. This is where the pragmatic
diplomacy component of its strategy comes into play. The Philippines has sought to
engage with China diplomatically, recognizing that cooperation with its neighbor is
crucial for economic prosperity. One of the key areas of cooperation has been in
infrastructure development, particularly through China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI),
which offers significant economic opportunities for the Philippines. These agreements,
which include investments in critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and energy
projects, are vital for the country’s economic growth and development.

However, while these economic agreements provide tangible benefits, they also come
with risks. The Philippines must ensure that its engagement with China does not come
at the expense of its sovereignty or legal standing in the South China Sea. As it
navigates this balancing act, the Philippines must ensure that joint ventures and
collaborative projects respect its territorial claims as outlined in the PCA ruling. This
means that any projects undertaken with China in the South China Sea or related
maritime zones must be conducted in a way that does not undermine the Philippines’
position on its territorial rights. By carefully negotiating terms and aligning agreements
with international law, the Philippines can maintain a clear stance on its sovereignty
while benefiting from the economic opportunities offered by China.

In this context, the Philippines’ dual-track approach—combining legal advocacy with

diplomatic engagement—allows it to address both the legal and practical dimensions of
the South China Sea dispute. On one hand, the Philippines continues to call for China’s
adherence to the PCA ruling and seeks international support for its position. On the
other hand, it engages in dialogue with China to ensure that its economic interests are
protected and that its sovereignty is not compromised by any bilateral agreements. This
pragmatic approach acknowledges the complexities of the situation and seeks to strike
a balance between asserting legal rights and pursuing economic cooperation.

The Philippines’ engagement with China also involves a broader regional and
international dimension. While the Philippines maintains its relationships with China, it
also works closely with other ASEAN members and external partners, including the
United States, Japan, and Australia, to strengthen its position in the region. ASEAN,
despite its internal divisions, remains a critical platform for promoting a collective
response to the South China Sea dispute. The Philippines has actively advocated for a
more unified ASEAN approach, pushing for the adoption of the 2016 PCA ruling and the
strengthening of international legal norms. By working with other regional and global
powers, the Philippines seeks to create a diplomatic front that can effectively challenge
China’s assertive actions and uphold a rules-based order in the South China Sea.

At the same time, the Philippines’ diplomatic efforts are complemented by its
participation in multilateral forums such as the East Asia Summit and the United
Nations. These platforms provide the Philippines with opportunities to voice its concerns
about the South China Sea dispute and to rally support for its position. By engaging in
these diplomatic arenas, the Philippines enhances its ability to shape the discourse
around the dispute and to gather international support for its legal and diplomatic efforts.
In this way, the Philippines leverages both regional and global partnerships to reinforce
its stance on the South China Sea.

While this dual-track approach has allowed the Philippines to make significant strides in
advancing its position, challenges remain. The Philippines must carefully manage its
relationships with both China and its allies to avoid being caught in the middle of
competing interests. Moreover, the ever-evolving nature of the South China Sea dispute
requires the Philippines to be adaptable in its diplomatic strategies. As China continues
to assert its dominance in the region, the Philippines must remain vigilant in
safeguarding its maritime rights while engaging in pragmatic diplomacy to secure
economic benefits.
 REFERENCES

Al Jazeera. (2024). Philippines-China Tensions Escalate with New Blockades in South

China Sea. Al Jazeera. Retrieved from www.aljazeera.com

Al Jazeera. (2024). What’s behind escalating China-Philippines tensions in the South

China Sea? Retrieved from
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/11/whats-behind-escalating-china-philip
pines-tensions-in-the-south-china-sea

Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. (2024). Island Tracker and Militarization in the
South China Sea. Retrieved from https://amti.csis.org/

Bader, J. (2019). The United States and Southeast Asia: A Relationship in Transition.
Brookings Institution.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-united-states-and-southeast-asia-a-relati
onship-in-transition/

Batongbacal, J. (2017). The South China Sea Arbitral Award and Its Implications for
Regional Stability. Philippine Law Journal, 91(3), 309-334.

Batongbacal, J. (2019). ASEAN’s Role in South China Sea Disputes: Challenges and
Prospects. Asian Journal of International Law, 9(1), 29-58.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251319000051

Batongbacal, J. L. (2020). The Philippines' Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea:
Legal Issues and Policy Responses. Journal of Maritime Affairs.

Beckman, R. (2017). The South China Sea Arbitration and the Rule of Law. Asian
Journal of International Law, 7(2), 233–252.

Borg, R. (2020). Maritime Disputes in Southeast Asia: Challenges for International Law.
Oxford University Press.

Bowers, A. (2020). Australia's Role in the South China Sea: Navigating Between
Security and Economic Interests. Australian Journal of International Affairs,
74(4), 409-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2020.1757662

Britannica. (n.d.). South China Sea Dispute. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/

Buszynski, L. (2018). ASEAN and the South China Sea: A Complex Web of Interests
and Alliances. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 18(2), 287-310.
https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/apy019

Calderon, R. (2023). Environmental Impact of China's Artificial Island Construction in

the South China Sea: A Critical Review. Environmental Politics Review, 12(2),
235-250.

Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2023). Environmental Impacts of Island
Building in the South China Sea. Retrieved from https://csis.org/

Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2023). Environmental Impacts of Island
Building in the South China Sea. Retrieved from https://csis.org/

Chau, D. (2023). Legal Strategies and Capacity Building in Maritime Disputes.

Cambridge University Press.

China Power Team. (2020). China’s Power in the South China Sea. Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS). https://chinapower.csis.org/south-china-sea/

Council on Foreign Relations. (2024). Freedom of Navigation Operations: A Key Tool in

the U.S.-China Rivalry. https://www.cfr.org/fonops

Council on Foreign Relations. (2024). Territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
Retrieved from
 https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-s
ea

Council on Foreign Relations. (2024). The South China Sea Conflict. Retrieved from
https://www.cfr.org/

Crisis Group. (2024). The Philippines: Calming tensions in the South China Sea.
Retrieved from
https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/philippines-south-china-sea/phili
ppines-calming-tensions-south-china-sea

Crisis Group. (2024). Environmental Impact of China's Activities in the South China Sea.
https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/china

Davidson, S. (2021). The Philippines' Legal Victory and the South China Sea Dispute.
Asian Politics & Policy, 13(1), 22-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/asi.12345

Dutton, P. A. (2017). The South China Sea: The Struggle for Power in Asia. Columbia
University Press.

Emmers, R. (2016). The South China Sea Dispute and the Role of ASEAN: Managing
Multilateral Relations in the Age of China’s Rise. Asian Security, 12(1), 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14799855.2016.1138191

Feng, Z. (2021). China’s Geopolitical Influence and Its Impact on ASEAN's Position on
the South China Sea. Journal of East Asian Studies, 15(4), 330-348.

Feinberg, R. E. (2018). The Philippines: A U.S. Partner in the South China Sea Dispute.
World Politics Review.
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/24482/the-philippines-a-u-s-partner-i
n-the-south-china-sea-dispute

Fidler, D. (2017). The Rule of Law and the South China Sea: International Law and
Sovereignty in Asia-Pacific. Asian Journal of International Law, 7(2), 155-178.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2018). Southeast Asia Fisheries Overview.

Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/

Ford, J. (2020). Navigating the Geopolitics of the South China Sea: A Strategy for
Smaller States. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 7(3), 255-272.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2347797020914341

Fravel, M. T. (2019). Maritime Security in the South China Sea: The Quest for a Code of
Conduct. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 6(3), 220-242.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2347797019867554

Friedman, T. L. (2020). U.S. Naval Operations and China’s South China Sea Claims.
New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/opinion/south-china-sea-navy-operations.ht
ml

Garnaut, R., & Laskai, L. (2020). Japan’s Strategic Response to China’s South China
Sea Claims. Asian Security Review, 18(2), 115-130.
https://doi.org/10.1007/ashl.2020.18.2

Goh, E. (2020). The Geopolitical Challenges of Enforcing International Law in the South
China Sea. International Affairs, 96(2), 345-361. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiz227

Goldstein, L. (2022). The South China Sea and Power Asymmetry: Economic Leverage
and Military Dominance. Asian International Relations Journal, 30(4), 120-135.

Harrison, J. (2019). China's Rejection of International Law: A Challenge to Global Order.

Global Governance Review, 23(1), 45-61.
Hegadorn, D. (2021). Freedom of Navigation Operations and the U.S.-China Rivalry in
the South China Sea. Asia Policy, 16(4), 63-90.
https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2021.0041

Hughes, C. (2020). The U.S.-Philippines Alliance and the South China Sea: The 1951
Mutual Defense Treaty and Contemporary Challenges. The Pacific Review,
33(5), 702-723. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2020.1804862

Kang, D. (2020). Power, Law, and the South China Sea Dispute: The Primacy of
Geopolitics in International Law. International Studies Quarterly, 64(2), 124-140.

Kaplan, R. D. (2019). The South China Sea: The Perils of Great Power Rivalry. Foreign
Affairs, 98(4), 54-68.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-06-11/south-china-sea-perils-g
reat-power-rivalry

Klein, N. (2011). Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Cambridge University Press.

LaFond (2025). South China Sea. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/place/South-China-Sea

Lee, S. (2018). China’s Economic Leverage in the South China Sea. Journal of Asian
Economics, 54, 22-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2017.09.001

Le, T. N. (2016). Vietnam and China in the South China Sea: The Case for Regional
Cooperation and the COC. Southeast Asian Affairs, 2016, 73-91.
https://doi.org/10.1353/sea.2016.0007

Liu, P. (2021). Regional Power Shifts in the South China Sea: The Role of China and
ASEAN's Internal Struggles. Southeast Asian Policy Review, 48(1), 55-68.

McNally, J. (2020). China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Its Impact on Southeast Asia’s
Foreign Policy. Global Strategy and Diplomacy, 11(3), 207-222.

Miller, T. (2022). Militarization of the South China Sea: A Growing Threat to Regional
Stability. International Security Journal, 28(4), 56-72.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2016). Statement on the
Arbitral Tribunal Decision. Retrieved from https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/

Nakano, K. (2018). Japan's Role in the South China Sea Dispute: Securing Maritime
Security and Regional Stability. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 4(3),
227-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057891118762699

Nguyen, T. (2022). ASEAN’s Role in Strengthening Regional Legal Frameworks.

ASEAN Institute for Strategic Studies.

Oberdorfer, D., & Hampson, F. O. (2017). The United States and the Philippines:
Enhanced Defense Cooperation and the South China Sea. International Journal
of Asian Studies, 14(1), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479591416000410

Permanent Court of Arbitration. (2016). Award in the South China Sea Arbitration
(Philippines v. China). Retrieved from https://www.pca-cpa.org/

Permanent Court of Arbitration. (2016). The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic
of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China). Retrieved from
https://pca-cpa.org

Ratcliffe (2024). South China Sea conflict: Philippines coast guard. Retrieved from
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/12/south-china-sea-conflict-p
 hilippines-coast-guard](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/12/sou
th-china-sea-conflict-philippines-coast-

Roberts, C. (2021). Freedom of Navigation Operations and Their Impact on South

China Sea Tensions. Asia-Pacific Security Review, 18(1), 44-60.

Schwartz, J. (2023). ASEAN and the South China Sea: The Limits of Regional
Cooperation. ASEAN Studies Journal, 18(2), 101-115.

Smith, M. (2017). Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: The U.S. Response
to China’s Expansion. International Journal of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,
9(2), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09732220.2017.1330529

Sung, H. (2021). Divided ASEAN and Its Role in the South China Sea Dispute. Journal
of International Relations and Development, 24(1), 83-106.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-021-00271-0

Swaine, M. D. (2016). China’s Response to the South China Sea Arbitration:

Implications for International Law and Order. The Asia-Pacific Journal, 14(8),
1-16. https://apjjf.org/2016/08/Swaine.html

Takahashi, Y. (2021). The Role of External Powers in the South China Sea Dispute:
Japan, Australia, and the United States. Journal of Indo-Pacific Security, 15(1),
54-70.

Tan, A. (2017). Negotiating the South China Sea Code of Conduct: ASEAN’s Regional
Security Dilemma. Journal of East Asian Studies, 17(2), 231-250.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2017.12

Tan, S. (2021). International Law and Regional Stability: The Case of Southeast Asia.
Routledge.

Taylor, B. (2014). China’s Influence in Southeast Asia: Economic Leverage and Political
Implications. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 1(1), 45-63.

Tay, S. (2020). ASEAN and the South China Sea: Navigating Regional Unity Amid
Chinese Aggression. Southeast Asian Studies, 58(3), 341-359.

Thayer, C. (2018). ASEAN and the South China Sea Dispute: Challenges and
Prospects. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies.

Thirlway, H. (2019). The Sources of International Law. Oxford University Press.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). (1982). United Nations.
Retrieved from https://www.un.org/Depts/los

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. (n.d.). China's Activities in the
South China Sea. Retrieved from https://www.uscc.gov/

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. (n.d.). The South China Sea
Arbitration Ruling: What happened and what’s next? Retrieved from
https://www.uscc.gov/research/south-china-sea-arbitration-ruling-what-happened
-and-whats-next

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2013). Oil and Gas in the South China Sea.
Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/

Wang, X. (2019). Historical Claims and Legal Conflicts in the South China Sea: A
Chinese Perspective. International Law Review, 14(3), 199-212.

Yee, S. (2018). The South China Sea Disputes: Historical, Legal, and Geopolitical
Perspectives. Brill Nijhoff.

Yu, H. (2017). The Impact of the Belt and Road Initiative on Southeast Asia. Asian
Economic Policy Review, 12(1), 10-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12116
Zhang, X. (2019). The Limits of International Law: China’s Compliance with UNCLOS in
the South China Sea. Asian Journal of International Law, 9(1), 1-27.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251318000264

Zhao, H. (2018). China’s Stance on the South China Sea Arbitration: Sovereignty,
Jurisdiction, and International Law. China Foreign Affairs Review, 6(1), 22-39.

Zhao, L. (2021). Coercion and Diplomacy in the South China Sea: The Role of Military
Power in China's Strategy. Journal of Asian International Relations, 25(4),
410-427.

Zheng, Y. (2018). China’s Regional Power in the South China Sea Dispute. Asian
Politics & Policy, 10(4), 595-612. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12473