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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Associate Press (AFP), July 25, 2010.
- 2.
Such as ports, artificial canals, and rivers.
- 3.
Associate Press (AFP), July 25, 2010. Lionel Vairon does not perceive a China threat. See his book, China Threat? (New York: CN Times Books, 2013).
- 4.
He visited my National Quemoy University (NQU) in December 2012. But, he said he does not perceive the boat people fleeing the Chinese mainland. See his book, The Coming Collapse of China (London: Arrow, 2001). In March 2015, David L. Shambaugh boldly perceives that the mainland is cracking up.
- 5.
It mentioned hydrographic survey ships.
- 6.
Part VI, article 76 mentioned natural components of the continental margin, such as its plateaux, rises, caps, banks, and spurs.
- 7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons. Accessed 8 Jan 2012.
- 8.
Email from him, dated December 20, 2011.
- 9.
See his paper, “The South China Sea Dispute,” paper presented at Entering Uncharted Waters conference, as sponsored by Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, February 18, 2011, pp. 13, 15, and 16.
- 10.
For a recent study of historic waters, such as “Alaska v. US” (2005), see Symmons 2008.
- 11.
This is translated by James C. Hsiung. GongDiBeiJu is a rough translation by another Chinese mainland academic, which is close to what academics in the West have in mind.
- 12.
Between, for example, thesis and antithesis, resulting eventually a synthesis.
- 13.
The words are borrowed from David Berry. See http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/commons_as_ideas. Accessed 11 Dec 2011.
- 14.
(New York: Courier Dover Publications, 1987), p. 138.
- 15.
http://www.act.nato.int/maritime. Accessed 23 Nov 2011.
- 16.
Ibid.
- 17.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/05/power_play?page=0,1. Accessed 8 Jan 2012.
- 18.
See their paper, “Contested Commons: The Future of American Power in a Multipolar World,” in id., eds., Contested Commons (Washington, D.C.: Center for a New American Security, January 2010), pp. 3–48 at p. 6.
- 19.
According to a reviewer of my book draft, he or she said “a commons denotes a space and a regime denotes how that space is managed,” email from the publisher dated November 28, 2012.
- 20.
See his paper, “Regimenting the Global Environment: Regimes, Nonregimes and the Invisibility of Sustainable Mountain Development,” paper presented for the 2007 International Studies Association Annual Conference, dated February 28-March 3, 2007, Chicago, p. 5.
- 21.
Ibid., Power and International Interdependence (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977), p. 19.
- 22.
Beijing has been promoting harmonious society for some time. A theoretician in the mainland said it is fundamentally Daoist. When you think of wuwo, there will be no comparison and contrast as well as competition, all of which would lead to struggle. See http://www.chinareviewnews.com, search dated March 10, 2007.
- 23.
See my book, International Governance and Regimes: A Chinese Perspective (London: Routledge, 2012).
- 24.
- 25.
In May 2013, I saw, for example, Knowledge Commons, at Zhejiang University’s library, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, mainland China.
- 26.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_commons. Accessed on December 19, 2011.
- 27.
Ibid.
- 28.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons and http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/commons_as_ideas. Accessed 11 Dec 2011.
- 29.
Perhaps we should mention the term, public goods, which was usually credited to Paul A. Samuelson for his coinage in an early 1950s paper.
- 30.
Denmark and Mulvenon, p. 12.
- 31.
Ibid., p. 14.
- 32.
http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/new-map-shows-chinas-true-expanse-general-says/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss, accessed on September 7, 2014.
- 33.
Email from him, dated December 20, 2011.
- 34.
http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80a04e/80A04E0b.htm and http://shi1818.blog.hexun.com.tw/28008562_d.html. Accessed on December 25, 2011. See also the following link, which only mentioned three straits in Southeast Asia: http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80a04e/80A04E0b.htm. Accessed 25 Dec 2011.
- 35.
According to Captain Raul (Pete) Pedrozo, US Navy (Ret.), who is a former professor of international law, “…the USNS Impeccable was not engaged in any sort of anodyne mapping exercises, but was actually conducted military surveillance against PLAN subs, thereby exempting the Impeccable from any UNCLOS obligations to butt out of the PRC EEZ.” See http://chinamatters.blogspot.tw/2014/08/china-as-eez-outlaw-in-south-china-sea.html. Accessed 3 Sept 2014.
- 36.
Email from him, dated December 20, 2011.
- 37.
However, we can pose a question: Does this translation also apply to all other contexts? Or should we have one translation for a specific context?
- 38.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html. Accessed 26 Dec 2011.
References
Copper, J. F. (2014). America’s Asia Pivot. East Asian Policy, 6(2), 99–107.
Denoon, D. B. H., & Brams, S. J. (1997). Fair division: A new approach to the spratly islands controversy. International Negotiation, 2(2), 303–329.
Hardin, G. (1968). Tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.
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.
Jasper, S. (2010). Securing freedom in the global commons. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
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.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (Eds.). (1972). Transnational relations and world politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Krasner, S. D. (Ed.). (1983). International regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Krasner, S. D. (1985). Structural conflict: The third world against global liberalism (p. 227). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lalwani, S., & Shifrinson, J. (2011). Whither command of the commons? Choosing security over control (p. 1). Washington, D.C.: New American Foundation.
Posen, B. R. (2003). Command the commons: The military foundation of U.S. hegemony. International Security, 28(1), 5–46.
Rodrigue, J.-P. (2004). Straits, passages and chokepoints: A maritime geostrategy of petroleum distribution. Cahiers de Géographie du Québec, 48(135), 357–374.
Symmons, C. R. (2008). Historic waters in the Law of the Sea: A modern re-appraisal. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
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).
Vogler, J. (1995). The global commons: A regime analysis (p. 18). New York: Wiley.
Wettestad, J. (1999). Designing effective environmental regimes: The key conditions (p. 12). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Young, O. R. (1989). International cooperation: Building regimes for natural resources and the environment (p. 13). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Yu, P. K.-H. (2012). International governance and regimes: A Chinese perspective (pp. 8–9). London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
YU, Ph. (2015). International Regimes and Maritime Commons in the South China Sea: A One-Dot Theory Interpretation. In: Ocean Governance, Regimes, and the South China Sea Issues. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-329-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-329-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-287-328-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-287-329-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)