Implications of International Court Ruling on the South China Sea Dispute
The tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled on July 12 that most of China’s claim to the disputed areas of the South China Sea has no legal basis. The case was brought in 2013 by the Philippines, one of the five sovereign states that have suffered from tensions with China since the 1970s about the overlapping territorial claims. Other countries involved besides China and the Philippines include Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. Taiwan has also laid claim to certain portions of the sea. Among other decisions, the court refused to accept China’s claim to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Spratly Island archipelago. It also criticized China for its failure to stop Chinese fishermen from harvesting endangered marine species, and declared that China has interfered with the Philippine’s fishing and oil exploration efforts.
Even before the ruling was officially publicized, China refused to recognize the tribunal’s jurisdiction, making clear its intention to ignore the court’s decisions. Although the verdict is legally binding for the countries involved, only international pressure can enforce it.
China’s continued active militarization in the area has strained its relationships with members of the international community. For the United States, China’s activities challenge American power in Asia. Its disregard of the court’s legitimacy has also gone against the rest of the G7 countries and the European Union, which have demonstrated public support for the arbitration process.
The South China Sea controversy has also strained ties between China and Singapore. Although the two states have preserved close ties in recent decades, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong offered that “the verdict was a strong statement about international law in maritime disputes.” In a visit that caused further tensions earlier in August, Lee told Obama that he would like to see continued active U.S. engagement in the region.
The ruling has also brought attention to the fishing rivalry in the waters. Fish are an extremely valuable asset in the region. According to researchers from the University of British Columbia, fish exports from the South China Sea comprised about 11% of global fish exports in the 1980s. But by 2011, that figure grew to 27%. If governments do not take more vigorous steps to prevent overfishing, fish stocks are estimated to decline by 57% in the next 20 years.
Experts believe that the recent court decision will only deplete maritime resources even more as rival countries feel more confident about capitalizing on its assets, while China encourages more fishing to reassert its territorial claims. Whether political or economic, the consequences of the international court ruling make clear that the issues related to the South China Sea dispute are far from over.
