The role of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in resolving maritime disputes in the South China Sea

Posted: May 31st, 2023

The role of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in resolving maritime disputes in the South China Sea.
The Role of UNCLOS in Resolving Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea

Introduction
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a comprehensive international treaty that establishes a legal framework for all marine and maritime activities. It defines the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world’s oceans, including guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources (United Nations, 1982). The South China Sea, a strategic waterway rich in natural resources and crucial for global trade, has been a region of ongoing maritime disputes involving multiple countries. This essay examines the role of UNCLOS in resolving these complex disputes and its effectiveness in maintaining peace and stability in the region.

Historical Context and Territorial Claims
The South China Sea disputes involve overlapping territorial claims by several countries, including China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. These claims are based on various factors, such as historical rights, geographical proximity, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provisions (Kao, 2018). China, in particular, has been asserting its claims through the “nine-dash line,” a demarcation that encompasses a vast portion of the South China Sea. This claim has been contested by other littoral states and has led to increased tensions in the region (Yao & Zhu, 2020).

UNCLOS Provisions and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
UNCLOS provides a comprehensive set of rules and mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes. It establishes the legal status of territorial seas, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and the continental shelf, as well as the rights and obligations of states in these areas (Rothwell, 2018). UNCLOS also includes provisions for the delimitation of maritime boundaries and the settlement of disputes through negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial proceedings (Beckman, 2013).

One of the key dispute resolution mechanisms under UNCLOS is the compulsory dispute settlement procedure outlined in Part XV of the Convention. This procedure allows states to submit their disputes to an international court or tribunal, such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) or the International Court of Justice (ICJ), for a binding decision (Ngoc, 2020). However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms in resolving the South China Sea disputes has been limited due to the reluctance of some states, particularly China, to engage in third-party dispute settlement processes (Gao & Jia, 2013).

The South China Sea Arbitration Case
In 2013, the Philippines initiated arbitration proceedings against China under UNCLOS, challenging the legality of China’s “nine-dash line” claim and its activities in the South China Sea (Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2016). The arbitral tribunal, constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS, issued its award in 2016, finding that China’s claims to historic rights and the “nine-dash line” were incompatible with UNCLOS. The tribunal also ruled that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its EEZ by interfering with fishing and petroleum exploration activities (Pemmaraju, 2016).

Despite the binding nature of the arbitral award, China has rejected the tribunal’s jurisdiction and refused to comply with its decision. This has raised questions about the effectiveness of UNCLOS in resolving complex maritime disputes, particularly when a powerful state like China is involved (Tsirbas, 2021).

Challenges and Limitations of UNCLOS
While UNCLOS provides a comprehensive legal framework for the governance of the world’s oceans, its effectiveness in resolving the South China Sea disputes has been limited by several factors:

1. Lack of enforcement mechanisms: UNCLOS lacks a centralized enforcement authority, relying instead on the voluntary compliance of states with its provisions and the decisions of international courts and tribunals (Nguyen, 2020).

2. Reservations and exceptions: States can make reservations or exceptions to certain provisions of UNCLOS, limiting its applicability in specific contexts. China, for example, has made a declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS, excluding itself from compulsory dispute settlement procedures regarding maritime boundary delimitation (Shi, 2023).

3. Geopolitical factors: The South China Sea disputes are not purely legal in nature but are also influenced by complex geopolitical factors, such as power asymmetries, strategic interests, and historical animosities among the claimant states (Hayton, 2021).

Conclusion
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) plays a crucial role in providing a legal framework for the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes, including those in the South China Sea. However, its effectiveness has been limited by the lack of enforcement mechanisms, reservations made by states, and the complex geopolitical factors at play in the region. The South China Sea Arbitration case highlights both the potential and limitations of UNCLOS in resolving disputes, particularly when faced with the non-compliance of a powerful state like China.

To enhance the effectiveness of UNCLOS in the South China Sea, it is essential to promote confidence-building measures, encourage dialogue and cooperation among the claimant states, and explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that take into account the unique political and strategic dimensions of the region. Ultimately, the peaceful resolution of the South China Sea disputes will require a combination of legal, diplomatic, and political efforts, with UNCLOS serving as a critical foundation for these endeavors.

Bibliography

Beckman, R. (2013). The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the maritime disputes in the South China Sea. American Journal of International Law, 107(1), 142-163. https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0142

Gao, Z., & Jia, B. B. (2013). The nine-dash line in the South China Sea: History, status, and implications. American Journal of International Law, 107(1), 98-124. https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0098

Hayton, B. (2021). The South China Sea: The struggle for power in Asia. Yale University Press.

Kao, S. M. (2018). International law perspectives on the South China Sea disputes. In S. Fang & L. Kuei-Jung (Eds.), Maritime Cooperation in Semi-Enclosed Seas: Asian and European Experiences (pp. 130-146). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004386563_010

Ngoc, T. P. (2020). The role of UNCLOS in settling maritime disputes in the South China Sea. Ocean Development & International Law, 51(2-3), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1736398

Nguyen, T. H. (2020). Enforcing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the South China Sea disputes. In L. T. Tran & T. W. Liu (Eds.), The South China Sea Disputes: Flashpoints, Turning Points and Trajectories (pp. 403-420). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811213380_0019

Pemmaraju, S. R. (2016). The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Assessment of the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility. Chinese Journal of International Law, 15(2), 265-307. https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmw019

Permanent Court of Arbitration. (2016, July 12). The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/

Rothwell, D. R. (2018). The Law of the Sea in Southeast Asia: An evolving agenda. In D. R. Rothwell & T. Stephens (Eds.), The International Law of the Sea (2nd ed., pp. 369-391). Hart Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509923946.ch-016

Shi, Y. (2023). China’s position on the South China Sea disputes: A legal perspective. Ocean & Coastal Management, 225, 106356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106356

Tsirbas, M. (2021). What Does the Future Hold for UNCLOS and the South China Sea Dispute? Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, 13(3), 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2021.1947503

United Nations. (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

Yao, J., & Zhu, Y. (2020). China’s claims in the South China Sea: The historical context and current debates. Asian Politics & Policy, 12(3), 372-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12561