Abstract
When looking at Asia-Pacific, a regional power shift seems to be taking place. Probably the most notable feature of this is the rise of China as an economic powerhouse, a major military power as well as a proactive player in various multilateral institutions and fora. Multiple authors have rightly described China as one of the most important forces for change both at the regional and global level. China’s widely discussed rise and the changing regional power balance caused by the Middle Kingdom’s impressive development have indeed altered the global perceptions of the geo-politics and geo-economics of Asia-Pacific. On the one hand, this is due to the greater role China is now playing beyond its own region. More importantly, however, this is one the other hand also strongly related to the growing possibility that the US-led regional order in Asia-Pacific may be challenged (and permanently altered) by an increasingly confident Chinese leadership. This cannot only be exemplified by the installation of new intergovernmental bodies by China. At least equally important in this regard is the fact that China has actively been working towards shifting the established order in its nearby neighborhood. Developments in the South China Sea (SCS) are of primary importance in this regard. Accordingly, the disputes in the SCS need to be better understood in order to develop a more comprehensive grasp of the broader power play that takes place in Asia-Pacific.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It should be noted that there are many names for this maritime area. While China calls it the ‘Southern Sea’ (Nan Hai), Vietnam depicts it as the ‘Eastern Sea’ (Biển Đông), and in the Philippines the area is also known as the ‘West Philippine Sea’ (Dagat Kanlurang Pilipinas). For the purpose of clarity this volume sticks to the name that is used in China, Thailand, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia and many other countries worldwide and calls it the South China Sea.
- 2.
Although the amount of energy resources has been uncertain, the US Energy Information Administration estimates that 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may lie beneath the SCS. Importantly, the US Geological Survey estimates that gas resources yet to be discovered in the SCS could range between 70–290 trillion cubic feet and estimates oil resources in the SCS to be as high as 22 billion barrels. Importantly, however, only a small fraction of these resources are expected to lie within the u-shaped, infamous nine-dotted line China claims in the SCS. See Hayton (2015).
- 3.
Kirchberger (2015).
- 4.
Sakhuja (2011).
- 5.
Caceres (2014).
- 6.
Waldron (2014, p. 174).
- 7.
Map by courtesy of CIA Factbook.
- 8.
Oertel (2014).
- 9.
Drèze and Sen (2013).
- 10.
Sally (2010).
- 11.
White (2010).
- 12.
Marsh (2014).
- 13.
Hughes (2010, p. 167).
- 14.
On the benefits of studying the regional level of international relations see Fawn (2009).
- 15.
See Morrison (2013, p. 4).
- 16.
Roach (2014), emphasis added.
- 17.
Samuelson (2014). Note that it is important to be cautious with the application of economic models that use current economic data to extrapolate trends. For the case of China’s future economic development this means, for instance, that even though the country has experienced almost four decades of impressive growth rates in the past and has overtaken some other major economies, such a development might very well change in the future as over time currently not anticipated internal or external developments (which are thus not included in the models) come into play. See on this for instance Babones (2011).
- 18.
Holslag (2015).
- 19.
See for instance Yong and Moore (2004) or Wagener (2011). In his insightful 2009 review essay Christopher Layne described how the so far largely academic discussions on the competition between China and the US and the scholarly debates over the challenges to American primacy slowly became part of the public discourse on US foreign policy. Layne (2009, part. p. 152).
- 20.
For example, Graham Allison notes that in history in “11 out of 15 cases since 1500, where a rising power emerged to challenge a ruling power, war occurred”. Allison (2012).
- 21.
Office of the Secretary of Defence (2014).
- 22.
Perlo-Freeman and Solmirano (2014).
- 23.
Ibid., p. 6.
- 24.
Szalwinski (2014, p. 348).
- 25.
Roach (2009, p. 327).
- 26.
Copeland (2012, p. 70).
- 27.
Christensen (2011). Other tensions were created for instance due to the 1999 bombing of the People’s Republic’s embassy in Belgrade by US forces during NATO’s war against Yugoslavia, the EP-3 spy plane crises in 2001, Washington’s military sales to Taipei in the same year and the rising Chinese military profile across from Taiwan.
- 28.
Smith (2012).
- 29.
Roy (2013).
- 30.
Stratfor (2010).
- 31.
Reuters (2012). Kissinger—following Joshua Cooper Ramo—states that one should rather see the Sino-US relationship as one of ‘co-evolution’ instead of ‘partnership’, i.e. both sides try to pursue an own agenda dominated by domestic demands and national interests, while actively working to minimize conflict between them by identifying and developing complementary interests. Kissinger (2011, p. 540).
- 32.
Cit. in Mardell (2012).
- 33.
John Mearsheimer prominently argues that Washington would react with “outrage” if China tried to get Mexico or Canada in an own military alliance—hinting that after almost 200 years since the Monroe Doctrine first ‘banned’ any intervention in the Americas by outside powers such a move would still be unacceptable for the US political and military leaderships. Mearsheimer (2014, p. 6). A similar point regarding the differing standards in regional intervention between China and the US is made in Roy (2013, p. 59).
- 34.
The system of the law of the sea was fundamentally established and operated based on the principle of mare liberum, freedom of the sea, which meant that the sea was open for states to freely navigate and fish (Klein, 2005, p. 5). The idea was generated by Grotius in the 17th century (Churchill and Lowe 1999) and is still being respected today. More importantly, freedom of navigation can be considered as “one of the pillars of the law of the seas and was at the origins of modern international law” (Wolfrum 2014). The scope of the norm, however, usually provokes controversy. Based on examining their practice encountering with recent disputes in the SCS, the two major maritime powers of the world, China and the U.S., are unlikely to share the same view on the issue.
- 35.
Hayton (2014).
- 36.
Thirlway (2010, p. 102).
References
Allison, G. (2012, August, 21). Thucydides trap has been sprung in the Pacific. Financial Times. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5d695b5a-ead3-11e1-984b-00144feab49a.html#axzz3UOWmaOx2
Babones, S. (2011). The middling kingdom. Foreign Affairs, 90(5), 79–88.
Caceres, S. B. (2014). China’s strategic interests in the South China Sea. Power and resources (p. 89). London: Routledge.
Christensen, T. J. (2011). Worse than a Monolith. Alliance politics and problems of coercive diplomacy in Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Churchill, R., & Lowe, V. (1999). The Law of the Sea (3rd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Copeland, D. C. (2012). Realism and Neorealism in the study of regional conflict. In T. V. Paul (Ed.), International relations theory and regional transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drèze, J., & Sen, A. (2013). An uncertain glory. India and its contradictions. London: Allen Lane.
Fawn, R. (2009). Regions’ and their study: Wherefrom, what for and whereto? Review of International Studies, 35(S. 1), 5–34.
Hayton, B. (2014). The South China Sea. The struggle for power in Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hayton, B. (2015). The South China Sea. The struggle for power in Asia (p. 149). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Holslag, J. (2015). China’s coming war with Asia. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hughes, J. H. (2010). China’s place in today’s world. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 35(2), 167–223.
Kirchberger, S. (2015). Assessing China’s naval power: Technological innovation, technological constraints, and strategic implications. Heidelberg: Springer.
Kissinger, H. (2011). China. Zwischen Tradition und Herausforderung. München: C. Bertelsmann.
Klein, N. (2005). Dispute settlement in the United Nation Convention on Law of the Sea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Layne, C. (2009). The waning of US hegemony—Myth or reality? A review essay. International Security, 34(1), 147–172.
Mardell, M. (2012, November 18). US pivots, China bristles. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20387131
Marsh. (2014). 613 and Sloan, Elinor (2011): ‘US-China military and security developments’. International Journal, 66(2), 265–283.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). Why the Ukraine crisis is the west’s fault. The liberal delusions that provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs, 93(5), 1–12.
Morrison, W. M. (2013). China’s economic rise: History, trends, challenges, and implications for the United States. CRS Report for Congress, No. RL33534, 17th December 2013. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33534.pdf (10.09.2015).
Oertel, J. (2014). China and the United Nations. Chinese UN policy in the areas of peace and development in the era of Hu Jintao. Baden-Baden: Nomos, Bloomsbury.
Office of the Secretary of Defence. (2014) Military and Security Developments Involving the People’ Republic of China. Annual Report to Congress. Retrieved September 17, 2014, from http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_DoD_China_Report.pdf
Perlo-Freeman, S., & Solmirano, C. (2014, April). Trends in world military expenditure, 2013. SIPRI Fact Sheet, p. 4.
Reuters. (2012, October 23). ‘Debating China’, U.S. President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney outline China policy in final Presidential debate. Retrieved December 18, 2012, from http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/10/23/debating-china?videoId=238602596
Roach, S. S. (2009). The next Asia. Opportunities and challenges for a new globalization. Hoboken: Wiley.
Roach, S. (2014). Unbalance. The codependency of America and China. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Roy, D. (2013). Return of the dragon. Rising China and regional security. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sakhuja, V. (2011). Asian maritime power in the 21st century. Strategic transactions—China, India and Southeast Asia. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
Sally, R. (2010). The shift to the East. Economic Affairs, 30(3), 94.
Samuelson, R. J. (2014, May, 14). Economic power shifting in China’s favor. The Washington Post. Retrieved July 9 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-economic-power-shifting-in-chinas-favor/2014/05/14/bee0d608-daf3-11e3-b745-87d39690c5c0_story.html
Smith, M. A. (2012). Power in the changing global order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Stratfor. (2010). China: Power and perils. Austin: Stratfor Press.
Szalwinski, A. (2014). Asia’s maritime disputes. In A. Tellis, A. M. Denmark, & G. Chaffin (Eds.), Strategic Asia 2014–15 US alliances and partnerships at the center of global power (pp. 348–350). Seattle: NBR.
Thirlway, H. (2010). The sources of international law. In M. D. Evans (Ed.), International law (3rd ed., pp. 95–221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wagener, M. (2011). Die aufgeschobene Konfrontation: Warum die USA mit China (noch) kooperieren. Internationale Politik, (2), 112–119.
Waldron, A. (2014). China’s ‘peaceful rise’ enters turbulence. Orbis, 58(2), 164–181.
White, H. (2010, September). Power Shift. Australia’s future between Washington and Beijing. Quarterly Essay, 39, 2.
Wolfrum, R. (2014). Freedom of navigation: New challenges. https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/wolfrum/freedom_navigation_080108_eng.pdf. Accessed 27 November 2015.
Yong, D., & Moore, T. G. (2004). China views globalization: Toward a new great-power politics? The Washington Quarterly, 27(3), 117–136.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fels, E., Vu, TM. (2016). Introduction: Understanding the Importance of the Disputes in the South China Sea. In: Fels, E., Vu, TM. (eds) Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters. Global Power Shift. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26152-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26152-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26150-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26152-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)