Description
The South China Sea (SCS) dispute is an enigmatic geopolitical issue, which is complex by its inherent nature, specifically the contesting sovereignty claims, and has evolved into such a conundrum that the code to resolve the problem is impossible to decipher. Adding to this complication is the academic discourse, which is supposed to answer our puzzles, but instead has contributed more to the intricacy. Recently, the U.S. State Department published a report refuting the maritime claims of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the South China Sea. The goal of this paper is to thoroughly review, analyse and engage with the South China Sea discourse along with State Department’s recent report and present a thorough analysis of the maritime claims of the states in the SCS, particularly focusing on PRC’s claims. The key argument of the paper is that given the inconsistency in the UNCLOS principle, as a part of liberal international order; exploiting these loopholes to extend one’s strategic interests is an intelligent policy choice – which China is following. However, China should justify its claims and give reasons for indulging in recalcitrant behaviour. And if it can convince other states that its behaviour falls within the confines of liberal international order, then Beijing can prevent balancing coalitions from emerging against it. To investigate whether this is the state of affairs, the paper evaluates the various claims of different claimants. It also provides a brief synthesis of Chinese claims, by reviewing the literature and followed by a brief history of the tussle between powers in SCS over the ownership of these islands. Further, it scrutinises claims and counter-claims and gives a relative comparison of entitlements of different contestants, particularly evaluating China’s nine-dash line prerogatives. Finally, it lays down China’s use of legal principles and laws, infested with nuances, to briefly sketch out legal arguments which are giving credence to Beijing's narrative over the ownership of the SCS. Such enunciations, justified on legal grounds, make China a legitimate actor in international politics, whose claims cannot be simply ignored. Even if a potential balancing coalition is in its infancy, China’s illegal claims to the ownership of maritime features, comparable to the size of Mexico state, cannot be the impetus for such a power equalising mechanism to manifest.
