Spratly Islands Set Dangerous Precedent

The Spratly Islands dispute in the South China Sea builds on a plethora of issues from geopolitics to economics and modern warfare, entangling most of Southeast Asia.  While many focus on the immediate implications of China’s aggressive actions, the international community should consider how the Spratly Islands dispute may have farther-reaching implications.

Territorial disputes are not new to Asia. Pakistan and India have been contesting over Kashmir for decades; the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Iran have been arguing over islands in the Arabian Gulf since the 1970s; and in recent years, the Chinese and Japanese have been challenging each other’s claims over the Senkaku -- or, as the Chinese call them, Diaoyu -- Islands.

Although localized brinksmanship over obscure territories follows a common pattern, the Spratly Islands dispute remains unique. The exceptional nature of the Spratly Islands dispute is not only born out of the entangling of global powers, but is unique in a larger sense because of the dangerous precedent that China is beginning to set forth international jurisprudence.

When the Gadhafis and Kim Jung Uns of the world try to import plutonium or detonate nuclear weapons, the international community responds with an avalanche of condemnations, sanctions, and strongly worded letters from the UN General Assembly. In the long run, these solutions amount to little more than putting a Band-Aid on bullet wound, but as long as failed states stick to their lanes, their volatility is relatively contained.

Should a major player on the international stage with integrated ties throughout the world decide to opt out of this international legal system, however, an entirely different scale of disruption is at risk. Recent developments in the Spratly Islands dispute have the potential to create this disruption.

The dispute became a larger question of international order this summer, when the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) handed down a decision in July.  The PCA’s decision made it clear that China violated international law by operating within the Filipino Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). In the eyes of the court and much of the international community, the PCA’s decision clearly resolves the issue.

The Chinese, however, have responded in turn by flatly rejecting the court’s authority and ignoring the decision. In the immediate wake of the ruling, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has called the PCA “a law abusing tribunal” whose decision is “merely a piece of paper.”

The Chinese reaction brings into question how to maintain peace and order in international territory. China has a long history of taking unorthodox approaches to its international relations, such as their predatory investment practices in Africa and Latin America. Flatly rejecting the court decision as “illegal and invalid” and more saliently, the court as a “farce,” is a bold transgression that moves the scope of the Spratly Islands dispute from the South China Sea to the world.

The Chinese denunciation of the PCA’s ruling echoes Japan’s rejection of the League of Nations (LoN) in 1933 after it judged unanimously that Japan was illegally occupying Manchuria. The Japanese response was to withdraw from the LoN and pursue their own “efforts for the establishment of peace in the Far East,” which included their vision of colonizing China and Korea. There is no credible threat today of China attempting to pursue their claims with the violence of 1930s Japan, but the fallout from Japan’s withdrawal may prove a timely warning.

In the wake of Japan leaving the LoN, many other nations followed and, by the outbreak of the Second World War, membership in the League had dwindled, with few of the war’s main belligerents still members by 1939. This trend of withdrawal from the LoN in the years leading up to the war made the LoN powerless to stop the outbreak of conflict. The Japanese withdrawal may or may not have lead to WWII, but it certainly set a precedent that discounted the value of international arbitration.

The fallout from the Chinese rejection of the PCA ruling may not be as visually immediate as their militarization of the Spratly Islands, but the questions it raises will be far reaching. Which countries will now be emboldened to stand up to “oppressive” international laws on sovereignty and human rights? How do you enforce these laws without conflict? Whose responsibility is it to enforce these laws? None of these questions have clear answers, but until they are tackled, the world risks not only an escalation in the South China Sea, but a breakdown of international peace.

Chad is an undergraduate in the School of Foreign Service majoring in International Politics with a Concentration in Security. Outside of academics Chad is an avid photographer and traveller.