Advertisement

International Regimes and Maritime Commons in the South China Sea: A One-Dot Theory Interpretation

  • Peter Kien-hong YU
Chapter

Abstract

In July 2010, the then US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that “[t]he United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea [SCS].” To be sure, non-“dialectically,” her announcement has at least logic(s) problems. However, in Part 1 of the section “Other Findings” in this chapter, I have converted her announcement in terms of my dialectical one-dot theory, which is accompanied by (a series of) the crab and frog motion or the 1 2 3 4 5 A B C D E model, so as to enable readers to apply and to test them later on. By doing so, the contradictory and confusing announcement could be logically, systematically, and coherently presented.

In Part 2 of the section “Other Findings”, I have attempted to first cite various definitions for the two concepts respectively, international regimes and (global) maritime commons, which are, ironically, a restricted space and are sometimes contradictory and confusing to many, if not most, students of international relations, especially those in East Asia. Second, I again converted them in terms of my theory and a series of crab and frog motion model, with future application by readers in mind. It goes without saying that the contradictory and confusing relationship between the two concepts can again be logically, systematically, and coherently presented.

In Part 3 of the section “Other Findings”, the same theory and model are applied to study the Chinese U-shaped line in the SCS, the proposed multilateral Spratly Development Authority (SDA), and the suggested fair division of the SCS. The purposes are threefold: first, to present them in terms of my theory and a series of crab and frog motion model, which can help readers to apply and test them later on; second, to find out whether the dimensions of international regimes and the (global) maritime commons do exist within the line and the two proposals; and third, to find out whether they contradict with what Clinton said in July 2010.

Keywords

International regimes (Global) maritime commons South China Sea The Chinese U-shaped line One-dot theory 

References

  1. Copper, J. F. (2014). America’s Asia Pivot. East Asian Policy, 6(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Denoon, D. B. H., & Brams, S. J. (1997). Fair division: A new approach to the spratly islands controversy. International Negotiation, 2(2), 303–329.Google Scholar
  3. Hardin, G. (1968). Tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hoffman, F. (2010). The maritime commons in the Neo-Mahanian Era. In A. M. Denmark & J. C. Mulvenon (Eds.), Contested commons (pp. 51–76). Washington, D.C.: Center for a New American Security.Google Scholar
  5. Jasper, S. (2010). Securing freedom in the global commons. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kaplan, R. D. (2010). Power plays in the Indian Ocean. In A. M. Denmark & J. C. Mulvenon (Eds.), Contested commons (pp. 179–191). Washington, D.C.: Center for a New American Security.Google Scholar
  7. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (Eds.). (1972). Transnational relations and world politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krasner, S. D. (Ed.). (1983). International regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Krasner, S. D. (1985). Structural conflict: The third world against global liberalism (p. 227). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lalwani, S., & Shifrinson, J. (2011). Whither command of the commons? Choosing security over control (p. 1). Washington, D.C.: New American Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. Posen, B. R. (2003). Command the commons: The military foundation of U.S. hegemony. International Security, 28(1), 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rodrigue, J.-P. (2004). Straits, passages and chokepoints: A maritime geostrategy of petroleum distribution. Cahiers de Géographie du Québec, 48(135), 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Symmons, C. R. (2008). Historic waters in the Law of the Sea: A modern re-appraisal. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Valencia, M. J. (1994). A spratly solution. Far Eastern Economic Review (hereinafter FEER), 157(3), 30 (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/10/news/10iht-edmark.t.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed 14 Oct 2011).Google Scholar
  15. Vogler, J. (1995). The global commons: A regime analysis (p. 18). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Wettestad, J. (1999). Designing effective environmental regimes: The key conditions (p. 12). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  17. Young, O. R. (1989). International cooperation: Building regimes for natural resources and the environment (p. 13). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Yu, P. K.-H. (2012). International governance and regimes: A Chinese perspective (pp. 8–9). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Quemoy UniversityJinmen CountyChina

Personalised recommendations