8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
1/68
1
Chapter I
Problem and its Background
Introduction
International Law is well established to protect the territorial integrity and
sovereignty of states and their relations with each otherbut territorial disputes still exist.
This generation has bid its farewell to imperialism a long time before. It has been a
hundred years since Portugal and Spain divided the world for them to conquer territories
under the name of their monarch.
China, as an emerging military and economic super power of this generation is
indulging on territorial expansions by claiming islands on East China Sea (Senkaku,
dispute with Japan) and even island outside the Chinese shoresthe South China Sea (De
Souza, 2010)
South China Sea is a peripheral sea which is part of the Pacific Ocean. The area's
prominence results from one-third of the world's shipping lanes pass through its waters.
Moreover, it is proven to have huge oil and gas reserves below its sea bed. It is located
south ofmainland China and theisland of Taiwan,west of thePhilippines,north west of
Sabah (Malaysia), Sarawak (Malaysia) andBrunei,north ofIndonesia,north east of the
Malay peninsula (Malaysia) andSingapore, and east ofVietnam (International Crisis
Group, 2012)
South China Sea is labelled as the mother of territorial disputes because of the
competing state claimants. The United States Department of State considers it as a
flashpoint that may trigger or start a shooting war among the claimants. China is the most
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainland_Chinahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Taiwanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruneihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singaporehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singaporehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruneihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Taiwanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainland_China8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
2/68
2
powerful claimant state and it asserts sovereignty over the entire SCS (Jensen, 2011)
through demarcating their claims within what is known as the nine-dotted line, which
claims overlap with virtually every other country in the region. Indonesia, China, and
Taiwan disputed over waters north east of theNatuna Islands. The Philippines, China,
and Taiwan claimsScarborough Shoal.Vietnam, China, and Taiwan asserts over waters
west of theSpratly Islands. TheParacel Islands are disputed between the Peoples
Republic of China, Taiwan and Vietnam. Some or all of the islands themselves are also
disputed between Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines
(International Crisis Group, 2010).
Hydrocarbon reserves, commercial fishing, declining fish stocks, nationalism,
military expansion and law enforcement capabilities of claimant countries are the
potential reasons of the existing conflict over South China Sea. The oil reserves could be
a big contribution to economic development of the claimant states. Appellant states
correspondingly intensifies the existence of their maritime and law enforcement vessels
in the disputed areas as tensions rise and further increasing the occurrence of maritime
incidents. Vietnam has had to take courageous efforts on defending its sovereignty claims
in response to historical claims of China. But in spite of the disputed claims and risk of
possible conflict, there was no major encounters occurred since 2011(International Crisis
Group, 2012). Bilateral tensions between some claimant states caused negotiations
between the claimants, but are unsuccessful to produce major development.
Specifically, disputes over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea have
become a threat for mutual security arrangements. China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei,
Malaysia and Philippines claim the Spratly Islands and the nautical area surrounding it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dotted_linehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natuna_Islandshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Shoalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islandshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islandshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islandshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islandshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Shoalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natuna_Islandshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dotted_line8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
3/68
3
The area is a rich fishing grounds and the seabed encloses oil and gas. Military forces
from claimants occupy the islands and reefs which exacerbates the struggle of finding a
solution. In line with this dispute, the United Nations on Laws of Sea (UNCLOS) was
held. This event gave another new dimension on the dispute in South China Sea.
Claimant states used their own interpretation of the UNCLOS to justify their claim,
extension of exclusive economic zones and occupation (De Souza, 2010).
The claimant states, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Brunei Darussalam are
members of the Association of South East Nations. The regional organization does not
have a unified stand regarding the disputed South China Sea because of the territorial
brawl between its member states. ASEAN and China went through series of negotiation
and talks since 1992. The July 2011 agreement between the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations and China over guidelines for implementing the 2002 Declaration on the
Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea has formed, to reduce tensions, a diplomatic
space that can be exploited. Cooperative initiatives could reduce future competition over
maritime rights but will require political will and diplomatic creativity to move forward
(Fravel, 2011). For each new diplomatic effort, new conflicts will arise and this gives
China a chance for assertion (De Souza, 2010). The absence of the unification of the
stand of ASEAN and the weakness of its multilateral framework has troubled the pursuit
for a solution (International Crisis Group, 2012).
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
4/68
4
Statement of the Problem
1. Why is the ASEAN unable to have a unified stand on the territorial dispute in
South China Sea between member states and Peoples Republic of China?
2. How will a unified stand of ASEAN affect the resolution of territorial dispute
on South China Sea?
3. How will the institutions of ASEAN affect the individual member states in the
conduct of their foreign relations in times of conflicts?
Assumptions
1.
The ASEAN is unable to have a unified stand regarding the territorial dispute on
South China Sea between member states and Peoples Republic of China because
of its weak structure and the overlapping of claims of the member states of
ASEAN (Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei)
2. A unified stand of the ASEAN regarding the territorial dispute can repel the claim
of China on the entire South China Sea.
3. As ASEAN is mostly inter-governmental and it has not yet combined to
consolidate national foreign policy to one solid foreign policy, the ASEAN
institutions will affect the individual member states in the conduct of their foreign
relations through diplomacy or soft power politics.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
5/68
5
Conceptual Framework
International Relations
Realist TheoryState Relations
Functionalist Theory
ASEANCHINA
Historical claim
over the South
China Sea.
Factors of
disunity of
ASEAN
countries
regarding the
South China
Sea dispute
Aggressive stand
on claiming thewhole South China
Sea by deploying
military bases on
the disputed
territories
Member states
have also
territorial
disputes with
one another
TERRITORIAL
DISPUTE over
South China Sea
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
6/68
6
Theoretical Framework
The illustration shows the theoretical paradigm of the study. It plots the
international relations of China and ASEAN member states regarding the territorial
dispute on South China Sea. China supports its claim with a historical title and has a
strong assertion of their claim of the entire South China Sea by occupying it and
deploying military bases in the area. Whereas, the member states of ASEANPhilippines,
Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam have overlapping claims on the islands on South China
Sea that created a dispute with each other as well. In spite of their regional integration
through ASEAN, the organization does not have a unified stand over the issue.
This study used two perspectives of international relations: Realism and
Functionalism.
Realism
Realism, with its focus on state sovereignty, military power and national interest
is embedded in the diplomatic and political practices of modern Europe up to 1945. The
dominant role of the actors is military security. States want to secure themselves and try
to get as much power as possible if there is no international order. Anarchy produces the
security dilemma since security can only be attained through power. They will claim a
right to be autonomous from other states, and claim a right to exercise complete authority
over their own territories. Military force and economic instruments are the mechanism of
state policy. Potential shifts in the balance of power and security threats are the forces
behind agenda formation. The role of international organizations is minimal and limited
by the state power and the importance of the military force (McCormick, 1999).
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
7/68
7
Roots of Realism and its Application to the Study
Realist theory was rooted from three political philosophers of different era. This
theory was first introduced by Thucydides and emphasizes that the constraints imposed
on politics by the nature of human beings, whom they consider egoistic, and by the
absence of international government. These factors contribute to a conflict-based
paradigm of international relations, in which the key actors are states where power and
security become the main issues, and in which there is little place for morality. Realism is
concentrated to state actors, egoism, anarchy, power, security, and morality (Stanford,
2012). Thucydides theory on realism shed light to the existence of conflict in the South
China Sea since it is a conflict based hypothesis where the key actors are China,
Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam. These states are asserting their sovereignty
over specifies portions of South China Sea to assure power and maintain security. The
actions of China is a disregards morality since it exercises economic intimidation towards
involved ASEAN states and to further threaten those ASEAN states who are not involved
to be neutral and passive in the face of the issue.
Niccolo Machiavelli (14691527) delved on the one aspect of realism which is
the relevance of morality in politics.Machiavellianismis a radical type of political
realism that is applied to both domestic and international affairs. He stressed that there is
a tendency to accept any policy that can benefit the state at the expense of other states, no
matter how morally problematic the policy is (Stanford, 2013). Chinas nine-dash-line is
anchored on this interpretation of political realism because even if the claim is not in
accordance with the International law, China still asserts its control over the entire SCS at
the expense of the states who are have the legal rights to have mutual cooperation over
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
8/68
8
the disputed territory. Moreover, this theory also illustrates a picture of China building
establishments and military presence in the SCS without a concrete proof that the area is
theirs.
Thomas Hobbes (15881683) argued that humans are extremely individualistic
rather than moral or social and are subject to a perpetual and restless desire of power
after power, that ceases only in death (Leviathan XI 2). This explains the anarchic state
of nature. It emphasizes that such a war as is of every man against every man (XII 8).
He derives his notion of the state of war from his views of both human nature and the
condition in which individuals exist. Since in the state of nature there is no government
and everyone enjoys equal status, every individual has a right to everything therefore
there are no constraints on an individual's behaviour. In connection with international
relations, the world has no single government and therefore, every state enjoys equal
status. In spite of the presence of International law through the United Nations, the world
is still anarchic.
Since realism limits the role of regional organization, its sheds light to the actions
of the individual member states on their bilateral negotiation with other member states
through Joint Bilateral Talks (enumerated and further discussed in Chapter 5).
Functionalism
Functionalism argues that the best people who build cooperation are technical
experts and not government representatives. Functionalists talk of the internal dynamic of
cooperation. It contends that if states work together in certain limited areas and create
new bodies to oversee that cooperation, they will work together in other areas through an
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
9/68
9
invisible hand of integration (McCormick, 2007).The role of international
organizations is substantial. Functional international organizations will formulate policy
and become increasingly responsible for implementation (McCormick, 1999).
Roots of Functionalism and its Application to the study
David Mitrany(18881975) pioneered the theory of Functionalism in international
relations. Its basic principle maintains that international cooperation is the best means of
softening antagonism in the international environment. The main rationale behind it was
that peace is more than the absence of violence (Navari, 1995). ASEAN was founded
in 1967 as an economic cooperation among South East Asian states and since then it has
evolved to include a certain level of political cooperation among its member states. The
dominant goals of actors are prosperity and peace and achieve security through
collaboration more than military power. Economic and political acts of the state are the
instruments of state policy. It emphasizes on soft power politics, such as economic and
social issues. The agendas are formed through consensus and not assertions.
Scope and Delimitations
The study focused on the overlapping claims of islands on South China Sea
between Peoples Republic of China, Republic of the Philippines, Malaysia, Republic of
Vietnam and Brunei Darussalam. The study shed light to the actions of the involved
states in relation to their assertion to the disputed maritime areas. Furthermore, it delved
on the territorial disputes among ASEAN member states that hinder its full cooperation
over the territorial disputes with Peoples Republic of China.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
10/68
10
The study does not include the effects of the planned ASEAN constitution in the
future, nor will it provide for a solution on the territorial disputes with the Peoples
Republic of China.
Significance of the study
This study aims to determine the factors that hinder the ASEAN from having a
united stand over territorial disputes in South China Sea; furthermore, it seeks to
understand the ASEAN institutions in relation to its member states on having no common
stand and resolution over territorial disputes in South China Sea and among its member
states.
The study would benefit different stakeholders and shall be advantageous
particularly to the following:
Future Researchers.This study would provide a framework or basis and review
of related literatures to future researchers who want to have a further study about the
topic of this research.
Professors, especially those who are engaged in teaching International Law
and Foreign Relations.This study offers new contributions by assessing the structure of
regional arrangements (ASEAN in particular), factors revolving it that affects its decision
making and settlement of disputes.
Students of Political Science, Legal Management and Foreign Relations. This
study provides a material for deeper understanding on the overlapping claims of China,
Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei on South China Sea and an assessment of the
ability of ASEAN to settle the dispute.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
11/68
11
Government of the Philippines. This study suggests ideas to the government on
how the state can assert and defend our claim over the Scarborough Shoal and Spratlys
Island against China, Brunei and Vietnam.
Definition of Terms
To provide the readers with better understanding and appreciation of the study,
the following terms are hereby defined.
ASEAN - Also known as Association of South East Asian Nation. It was created for the
purpose of security. It was neither formed to integrate member economies nor to build a
supranational institution.
BRUNEI - This country claims the southern Spratly Island, the formation called Louisa
Reef and Rifleman Bank, and extends of the EZZ around the southern part of the South
China Sea.
DOC - Also known as the Declaration of the Conduct in the South China Sea this
refers to the guidelines of the implementation of DOC in the South China Sea. The
Declaration of guidelines had previously been negotiated between China and the ASEAN
countries.
EEZ - Also known as Exclusive Economic Zone. The concept of EEZ provides the
claimants a clear basis regarding their claims in the part of continental shelf. Territorial
waters and the 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zones (EEZ) extending from the
baseline they have drawn around the island and coastline territories to which they claim
sovereignty.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
12/68
12
ICJ - Also known as the International Court of Justice, this refers to the claims to the
islands represent a dispute of sovereignty over land territory and could be submitted to
the ICJ.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS - It is the relationships among nations; the sub-field
of political science devoted to the study of relationships between nations.
KALAYAAN ISLAND - It is located in the Spratly Archipelago. It is claimed by the
Peoples Republic of China, Republic of China (Taiwan), Vietnam and the Philippines.
MALAYSIA - This country also claims the southern Spratlys Island since 2009 and
among the features is the Swallow Reef.
NINE-DASHED LINE - Also known as the U-shaped map .This refers to outline claims
of China to the South China Sea. This provided that China has historical rights to
resources within the line.
PARACEL ISLAND - This Island is located in the South China Sea. The Chinese and
the Vietnamese both occupied the parts of this island.
PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA- This country stated that the Spratly and Paracel
Islands and maritime rights over related waters in the South China Sea are theirs. And
their claims are based on U shaped line or what is called the Nine-dashed line.
PHILIPPINES - This country essentially claims the eastern section of the Spratlys,
which is near to Palawan. They claim the Kalayaan Island which is located in the Spratly
Island.
SCARBOROUGH SHOAL - Also known as Scarborough Reef. It is located in the
South China Sea. It is described as a group of rocks or very small islands with reefs. It is
a disputed territory claim by the Peoples Republic of China, Republic of China
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
13/68
13
(Taiwan), and the Philippines. The island has been controlled by the Peoples Republic of
China.
SOFT POWER POLITICS- It is a principle in international relations that state actors,
in order to influence other states through diplomacy utilizes the attractiveness of its
culture, values, political ideals, policies, economic strength and stability.
SOUTH CHINA SEA (SCS) - This refers to the disputed portion of waters that is North
of Malaysia and Brunei, South of China, East of Vietnam and West of Philippines.
SPRATLY ISLAND - It is a group of islands located in the South China Sea. The states
staking claims to various islands are: Brunei, Peoples Republic of China, Malaysia,
Republic of China (Taiwan), Philippines and Vietnam. All except Brunei does not
maintain any military presence in this island.
UNCLOS -Also known as the United Nation Conferences on the Law of the Sea. These
conferences dealt with controversial issues about the matters of territorial sea and
Maritime Zone generated by the islands. It allows for a maximum of 12 nautical miles
territorial water zone and a 200 nautical miles EEZ(possibly more, if continental shelf
claims are concerned)extending from the coast lines.
VIETNAM - This country claims in South China Sea include both the Spratly and
Paracel island chains
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
14/68
14
Chapter II
Review of Related Literature
Foreign Literatures
Description of the South China Sea Dispute
Fravel (2012) stated that in 2009, the rivalry for maritime rights in the South
China Sea had emerged as important security issue in East Asia. In fact, it is even stated
recently that the South China Sea is the new central theater of conflict in the world.
Boonpriwan (2012) identified that the main idea of the South China Sea dispute is
a series of complex, legal, technical and geographic components critical to understanding
the dispute. Yet, the issues involving territory and sovereignty are the most pervasive
security problems facing the region especially after the cold war. It is considered to be a
major flashpoint for the conflict in East Asia as the significances is the assumed
presence of natural resources such as oil, hydrocarbon, manganese nodules and fish after
the cold war, its strategic location is straddling as the worlds second busiest international
sea lane in South East Asia. The same with Buszynski (2004) saying that South China
Sea has been described as rich in oil, gas reserves and fishing right, the reason why it was
described as the geo-political focus of South East Asia.
Two of the ASEAN members, the Philippines and Vietnam have territorial
disputes with China over the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands. Sanae (2012)
identified that the main reason is the abundance of natural resources supposed to exist in
the South China Sea. Claimant countries assert territorial rights by formulating various
domestic measures to secure their marine interests. Seizure of fishing boats and face-offs
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
15/68
15
between patrol ships and the navies occur intermittently nowadays between China and the
Philippines and between China and Vietnam.
Description of Spratly Issue
C. Joyner (1998) stated that Spratly Island is a territory commonly called a
disputed area that is located in the South China Sea with a complex issue involving
numerous claimants. The Spratly Island comprises hundreds of small islets, coral reefs,
sandbars and atolls covering of 180, 000 square kilometers. Each states has its claiming
rights to all part of the Spratly and because of their overlapping claims it resulted to
gigantic tension in South China Sea.
O. Saleem (2000), Spratly Island refers by different names. For Vietnam they
named the islands as Truong Sa, for China they named the islands as Nansha and for
the Philippines they called the island as Kalayaan with this there is struggle among
various claimants states to name the Islands because there is challenge to establish and
solidify a perceptual transformation and example for vested property of interests or what
you called ownership of the islands. Aside from this there has been a continual political
tug-of-war between Brunei, China/Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam and Philippines.
Acharva (2007) stated that the Spratly dispute is widely viewed by ASEAN as the
main conflict in Southeast Asia. It also creates a serious test of ASEANs unity and to its
standard concerning the peaceful settlement of the dispute. Their significance is
magnified by the presence of natural resources in the area, as well as their strategic
location straddling some of the worlds most important sea lanes.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
16/68
16
Views of claimant states of the Spratly Island
Claim of China
International crisis group (2012) stated that Chinas claim on South China Sea is
based on the U shaped line or what is called the Nine-dashed line. On May 2009, China
submits to UN their map with Nine-Dashed line prior to that the interpretations of that is
China is claiming the entire body of water within the line.
Soleem (2000) noted that Chinas claims in Spratly Island is based on Historical
and it is rooted from the Chinese Dynasty whereby it stated that as early as there time
China is aware about the Spratly Island. The dynasty of Xia, Shang, Zhou, Qin, Han,
Tang, Song, Yuan , Ming and Qing each have knowledgeable and has a historical control
over the Spratly Island. Cossa (2001) stated that the first claim by China dates from an
1887 treaty with France dividing the Gulf of Tonkin at 1083E. It interprets this treaty as
extending south beyond the Tonkin Gulf to include all the islands of the South China Sea.
Claims of Vietnam
Soleem (2000) identified Vietnam claims is based on two theories and it is
similar to China First, way back in 1950- 1953 Vietnam has exercised historical rights
and dominion over the Spratly Island. Second, is because Spratly Island is part of the
continental shelf of Vietnam. Moreover, Cossa (2001) stated that when Vietnam gained
independence from France it gained sovereignty over the Spartlys and Paracel Island. The
French had administratively claimed Spratly Island in 1929 and the French Navy took
possession of it in 1930. In 1933, the French announced the formal occupation of the
Spratly islands.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
17/68
17
Claim of Malaysia
Soleem (2000) noted that the interest of Malaysia in claiming of Spratly Island is
based on geographical contiguity within the continental shelves and it is stated in the
Treaty of law and sea. They declared that it has discovered and currently subjugate the
island. Cossa (2001) stated that Malaysias claim is based on their continental shelf that
projects out from its coast and includes islands and atolls south and east of Spratly
islands. Based on Swallow Reef in 1983, Malaysia established a small military garrison
together with a fisheries control. In 1991, an airship was added and a small tourist center
and bird sanctuary have also established on the island in 1986.
Claim of Brunei
Cossa (2001) stated that Bruneis claim is based onto their extension of its coast-
line along its continental shelf. Its extent has varied from one established by the British in
1954 to a more recent claim issued in a map showing a longer extension that goes beyond
Rifleman Bank. Also, Bruneis claim is based on the interpretation of the UNCLOS
concerning the continental shelf. Soleem (2000) compared the claim of Brunei to be
similar to Malaysia which is based in geographical proximity that surrounded by the
continental shelves. It is stated under the treaty of law and sea that state territory
includes both a continental shelf allows for the exploitation of naturalresources and an
exclusive economic zone which can extend limitedsovereignty to a distance of
approximately 200 nautical miles fromthe coastline.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
18/68
18
Claim of Philippines
Soleem (2000) identified that the claim of the Philippines is based on economic
need, proximity and discovery because the abandonment of rights by other countries it
gives way to Philippines to claim and discover the strategic location of Spratly Island.
Cossa (2001) stated that Philippines based its claims to what it calls Kalayaan islands on
their proximity to Philippine territory and on the occupation and economic development
of these previously unused and unattached islands by the Filipino civilian settlers.
Description of Paracel Islands
The Central Intelligence Agency (2010) wrote that the Paracel Islands are
surrounded by productive fishing grounds and by potential oil and gas reserves. During
1932, French Indochina took over the islands and set up a weather station on Pattle
Island; maintenance was continued by its successor, Vietnam. China has occupied all the
Paracel Islands in 1974 when its troops seized a South Vietnamese garrison occupying
the western islands. China built a military installation on Woody Island with an airfield
and artificial harbor. The islands are also claimed by Republic of China (Taiwan) and
Vietnam.
Views of Claimant States of Paracel Islands
Claims of China
The Global Security (2010) positions that in the 19th and early 20th
century,
China asserted claims to the Spratly and Paracel islands. During World War II, the
islands were claimed by the Japanese. In 1947, China produced a map with 9 undefined
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
19/68
19
dotted lines, and claimed all of the islands within those lines. A 1992 Chinese law
restated its claims in the region. China has occupied some of those islands and in 1976,
China enforced its claim upon the Paracel Islands by seizing them from Vietnam. China
refers to the Paracel Islands as the Xisha Islands, and includes them as part of its Hainan
Island province.
Claims of Vietnam
The Global Security (2010) also identified that Vietnamese claims were based
on history and the continental shelf principle. Vietnamese claim also covers an
extensive area of the South China Sea, although they are not clearly defined. The
Vietnamese have followed the Chinese example of using archaeological evidence to
bolster sovereignty claims. In the 1930's, France claimed the Spratly and Paracel
Islands on behalf of its then-colony Vietnam. Vietnam has occupied a number of the
Spratly Islands. In addition, Vietnam claims the Paracel Islands, although they were
seized by the Chinese in 1974.
Claims of Taiwan
According to the Global Security (2010), Taiwan's claims are similar to those of
China, and are based upon the same principles. As with China, Taiwan's claims are also
not clearly defined.
The ASEAN and its ASEAN Way
According to Mattli (1999) and Webber (2001) ASEAN was born out of regional
conflict wherein the founding leaders have no agenda for integrating members
economies. According to Shaun (1966), the ASEANs founding purpose was to ensure
the survival of its members by promoting regional stability and limiting competition
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
20/68
20
between them. When ASEAN was established, the greatest threats to the national security
of its individual states were insurgencies that potentially invited external intervention in
the region. Furthermore, Guan (2004) wrote that for the reason of security, ASEAN was
created. It was not formed either to integrate member economies or to build a
supranational institution. It was established to directly respond to intra-regional stimulus
of Sukarnos confrontation that might stand to destabilize the region. Stubs (2009)
branded ASEAN as a failure on providing a collective voice in the East Asian states and
also the important territorial issues such as the Spratlys Island and the jurisdiction over
South China Sea. Their role as a regional organization is in the stage of danger because
ASEAN is currently going through a crisis of identity.
Cossa (2001) stated that a conflict between ASEAN claimants could tear at the
fabric of this important sub regional grouping of nations and weaken the positive
economic and political leadership role it plays sub-regionally. The conflict over the
Spratlys by the two members of ASEAN would be clear violation of the 1992 ASEAN
Declaration on the South China Sea which highlightthe necessity to resolve all the
sovereignty and jurisdictional issues pertaining to the South China Sea by peaceful means
without resort to force, and all parties to exercise restraint and or else avoid provocative
actions.
Pitsuwan (2001) agreed that the ASEAN is not prepared to pool sovereignty in a
way that is beneficial for the entire region. The organization needs to integrate diverse
political cultures of its member states by having a super structure of politics if the
members states are able to change its different government structure into a more
homogenized form of political set-up. In connection with this, Guan (2004) wrote that the
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
21/68
21
inability of ASEAN to have a successful integration is tied to a political culture which
holds sovereignty and non-interference sacred. The organization faces a tougher time to
create institutional structures that increases integration because it is covered within its
norms. The ASEAN lacks third party enforcement or commitment institutions. Member
states are not willing to shift any decision making authority to a higher supranational
bodies. Any bilateral disputes that arise between members are mostly handled through
quite diplomacy where the organization in not involved. ASEAN provided a channel to
manage and resolve territorial disputes among its members as a respond to its lack of
commitment institutions. ASEAN Troika was created in 2000 and was meant to deal with
sudden flare up of disputes. ASEAN high Council was created in 2001 and was meant to
deal with long-term disputes. According to Haacke (2003), The ASEAN Trioka failed to
materialize in the ministerial level and instead it ended up as an ad hoc body. It is not
allowed to make any decisions but only offer recommendations in assisting ASEAN
Foreign Minister. ASEAN High Council could only be invoked by the state involved in
the dispute and does not allow any member nation to call for a dispute for a dispute to be
brought up before a commission. Furthermore, TCJAS, (2004) wrote that treaty plays
important role in ASEAN, because ASEAN as a regional organization is unable to
formulate any kind of treaty like the 1957 Treaty of Rome establishing the EEC or also
known us European Economic Community. Because a treaty set clear rules and
procedures and ensure the commitment between its member states.
Conferring to Guan (2004), ASEAN diplomacy or the ASEAN way is built a set
of norms defining states behaviour that each member state is required to adhere to. It
provides a sense of regional identity only at the inter-governmental level. Haacke (2003)
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
22/68
22
noted the ideas of conceptualization of the ASEAN way. It is an intramural approach to
dispute management to confidence building. It is a decision making based on the
principles of consultation and consensus that is originally a Javanese process to resolve
political and personal differences. In addition by Guan (2004), ASEAN way mainly
features respect for sovereignty, non-interference, non-use of force, quiet diplomacy,
non-involvement of the organizations in bilateral disputes and mutual respect, consensus-
building, discretion and conciliation. Consensus (mufakat) will be achieved when all the
members agreed to suggestions and the outcome is slow.
Guan (2004) stated that the Consensus norm in ASEAN is both the organizations
strong and weak point. The consensus allow smaller and weaker states to have their
voices heard and its non-binding nature allow members states to oppose an initiative that
run contrary to its national policies. It puts every member state in equal footing. On the
other hand, according to International Herald Tribune (1998) and Asiaweek (1998), since
the responsibility is spread among the group, no one member can be found accountable
for the consequences and it increases ASEANs political and economic diversity.
Consensus is unable to produce results on detrimental situations.
China and ASEAN Member States Discussions
Salleh, et. al (2009) presented an overview of Malaysia Singapore territorial
disputes over PedraBranca/PulauBatuPuteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Both sides
claim that it is part of their territory. The Malaysian and Singapore governments both
agreed to settle the case under ICJ. In its Judgment, which is final, binding and without
appeal, by the ICJ the PedraBranca/PulauBatuPuteh belongs to Singapore, the Middle
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
23/68
23
Rocks belongs to Malaysia and South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters
of which it is located.
Wanandi (2001) quoted that the Indonesian foreign Minister during the 1995
ASEAN Regional Forum saying China gave the assurance that the Natuna Island is
Indonesias and any overlapping claims should be resolved in accordance with the
international law including the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea. China also
reiterated that the South China Sea is not Chinas and it claims are only the Paracel and
the Spratly Islands.
Mak (2001) stated that China has its historical habit of dividing its foes and
picking them off one by one. In this case, it is necessary to view the South China Sea
dispute as an ASEAN problem rather than a bilateral issue. But thus proposal will not be
easily accepted by the present ASEAN leaders who prefer less formal approaches.
However, because the Spratlys issue involves nearly all members of ASEAN, a common
agenda would contribute to a better confidence and trust building. This common agenda
is important because the Spratlys issue is the biggest defense challenge of ASEAN
members involves in the South China Sea dispute.
Sulaiman (2012) contested that China does not need ASEAN to settle the dispute
on South China Sea as many analysts supporting its position have noted that for China,
the South China Sea dispute can only be solved bilaterally with the other claimants,
notably Vietnam and the Philippines. Philippines and Vietnam concluded they simply
cannot rely on ASEAN to back their claims inspite the organizations ongoing
discussions with Beijing on a code of conduct for the South China Sea. Philippines and
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
24/68
24
Vietnam are courting the United States, another actor increasingly seen as a balancing
force against China in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, regarding the negotiations of China
to ASEAN member states, Crisis Group Asia Report N223 (2012) wrote that during the
July 2011 ASEAN Regional Forum, China agreed upon the guidelines of the
implementation of the Declaration of Parties in the South China Sea. This statement has
been already discussed between China and ASEAN countries. But in the view point of
ProfessorBuszynski (2004), the agreement of all parties to exercise self-restraint in the
conduct of the activities would complicate or escalate the disputes.
According to Mak (2001), the claimant states should compromise and adopt soft
approach towards China as the preferred option. But China is not using force and when
opportunity arises. Therefore, using soft approach towards China is not very effective
because China is known to be a political opportunistic and it will seize on any signs of
weakness. The ASEAN claimant states should also consider adopting hard-soft approach
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
25/68
25
Foreign Studies
Description of the South China Sea Dispute
International Crisis group (2012) China described South China Sea disputes as
their Core interest, a term that usually reserved for the issues of national sovereignty like
in Taiwan, Tibet wherein it is clearly seen that China is unwilling to compromise its
position and would resort to force.
Description of the Spratlys Issue
Claim of Vietnam
International Crisis Group (2012) states that Vietnam claims both the Spratly and
Paracel island chains, they say that they are the one who first discovered and named
Spratly islands; the evidence is their Vietnamese maps and books as early as the 19th
century.
Claim of Brunei
ICG (2012) stated that UNCLOS speaks that there are two features that Brunei
can claim on Spratlys island the formations Louisa Reef and Rifleman Bank, and the
extends of EEZ around the southern section of the South China Sea. Their maritime and
territorial claim extends with Malaysias, and into China, Taiwan, Vietnam and
Philippines. They are also the only one who does not occupy any of islands and does not
have any military/armed existence in South China Sea.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
26/68
26
Claim of Malaysia
ICG (2012) stated that the claim of Malaysia in the southern Spratlys was since
2009. Among the features is the Swallow Reef, which has airstrip, military equipment,
and diving resort. Their claims originated from 1979 map (Peta Baru), which located its
continental shelf claim off Sabah and Sarawak states. They also clarified their claims
with Vietnam-Malaysia dual submission to the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf, even if it has never specified the area its claims from the islands itself.
Claim of the Philippines
ICG (2012) specified that the claim of the Philippines in the Spratlys is over 50
features. The Kalayan Islands Group was claimed in 1956 by Tomas Cloma, a Filipino
citizen. And during 1974, he transferred it to the government and President Marcos
declared that it was part of Philippine territory in 1978. The congress passed legislation to
change the baselines to submit with international law, in 2009. The act states that, the
Scarborough Shoal and the Kalayaan Islands, which are a far from Philippines
archipelagic baselines, beneath the rule of islands doctrine in UNCLOS. In the same year,
both Malaysia and Vietnam made a dual submission to UN Commission on their Limits
in the Continental Shelf concerning the claims to some parts of South China Sea.
Description of Parcel Island Dispute
Claim of Vietnam
International Crisis Group (2012) stated its historical claims to Paracel are
supported by the Frances statement in the early 1930s assert sovereignty over the
islands. Also, Vietnam keeps that Japans rejection to South China Sea islands in San
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
27/68
27
Francisco Treaty did not specifically return the territories to China. The control and
administration in Spratlys have sustained complete during the Nguyen Dynasty (French
colonial government and Republic of Vietnam)
The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies (2004) stated the factors of impeding
ASEAN and the reasons why ASEAN is not a successful regional institution based on
Mattli and Webber. First reason is low and non-complementary intra-regional trade.
Second is Lack of undisputed leaders. Third is no central monitoring or third- party
enforcement.
Local Literatures
The organization has two mechanisms on conflict management relevant to the
interstate conflict within the ASEAN. First is the Formal Mechanism that includes the
Institutionalized Framework of Consultative Mechanisms, Institutionalized Bilateral
Mechanisms and Processes and Legal Instruments. The second mechanism is the
Informal Mechanism of Conflict management (Cario, 2008).
Hernandez (2001) quoted Ambassador Li Luye who wrote a letter to express his
views on the conference theme. He wrote that Chinas stand on the South China Sea issue
is very clear and it has indisputable sovereign right over Nan Sha Island (conflict with
Japan) but China is open to put aside disputes and seek for joint development and as far
as the ambassador has understood, all other countries concerned have also proclaimed
that they would follow the line of peaceful settlement and therefore, the discussion about
security implications of conflict in the South China Sea will not help to promote
understanding and solve the issue.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
28/68
28
A. Baviera (2012) estimated that the statement of Chinas Foreign Minister Yang
Jiechi at the 17th Asean Regional Forum in July 2010China is a big country and other
countries are small countries, and thats just a fact, is a proclamation that people on the
Chinese side may regret, as it may be quoted as representing an imperious attitude by
China toward its smaller and weaker neighbours. It may also be a statement that the
neighbours dread because it emphasizes difficulties in their future relations with China,
notwithstanding decades of economic and political engagement and charm offensive by
the regions rising power.
M. Abuggao (2011) wrote that the Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen said
hammering out a code of conduct with China in the disputed waters was a chief goal for
the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and urged delegates to
give emphasis to working towards a code of conduct in the sea, which will provide
guidelines to resolving disputes over a web of conflicting territorial claims involving
several member nations.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
29/68
29
Chapter III
Methodology
Research Method
The researchers used historical descriptive method. This method understands the
background and growth of an organization that offer insight into organizational culture,
current trends, and future possibilities. The historical analysis encompasses origins,
growth, theories, personalities and crisis (C. Busha, S. Harter, 1980). Historical research
is the process of systematically examining the past events to give an account of what has
happened in the past. It is a flowing dynamic account of past events that involves an
interpretation of the events in an attempt to recapture nuances, personalities, and ideas
that influenced these events. It is used to identify the relationship of the past to the
present and to evaluate the accomplishments of individuals, agencies, or institutions (M.
Rowilson). Primary sources are the most required after in historical research. Primary
resources are first-hand accounts of information including personal diaries, eyewitness
accounts of events, and oral histories. Secondary sources of information are records or
accounts prepared by someone other than the person, or persons, who participated in or
observed an event. (G. Tuchman). This study traced and analyzed the historical
background of ASEAN and the disputes over the South China Sea to see the possible
factors of the disputes and the disunity of ASEAN.
The researchers also used the Content Analysis method. This method is similar
with historical method for it also analyzes documents, events and issues. These methods
are different in the sense that Content analysis method analyzes current documents and
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
30/68
30
events. It is also referred as documentary analysis (Ariola, 2006). The researchers aquired
information from current documents and events in line with the disunity of stand of the
ASEAN towards the dispute on South China Sea between its members and Peoples
Republic of China.
The descriptive method is a form of interpretation of information through
discovery of the nature and the description of facts (De la Cerna et al., 2005). The
researchers chose the proper descriptive method which involves the analysis of different
printed materials such as books, journals, and other related articles. Through these
sources, the researchers came up with such study and further helped towards the analysis
of the subject
Research Design
Qualitative research is concerned with developing explanations of social
phenomena. It is characterized by its aims, which relate to understanding some aspect of
social life, and its methods which (in general) generate words, rather than numbers, as
data for analysis. It is also concerned with finding the answers to questions which begin
with: What, why, how and in what way? Qualitative data are collected through direct
encounters with individuals, through one to one interviews or group interviews or by
observation. Common data collection methods used in qualitative research focused in
groups, triads, dyads, in-depth interviews, bulletin boards, and observation. (B. Hancock,
2002)
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
31/68
31
Data Gathering Instruments
The researchers used legal documents and other pertinent data on the inability of
ASEAN towards a united stand in the territorial disputes on South China Sea involving
ASEAN and member states and Peoples Republic of China.Other printed materials that
are relevant and necessary for the completion of this study such as books, journals,
periodicals, e-books, use of internet and undergraduate theses are widely used as
instruments of this study.
Primary sources. To be able to gather first hand documents, the researchers sought
concepts and ideas through gathering documents from Agreements, Treaties, ASEAN
Charter, and Meetings of ASEAN head of state.
Interviews. The researcher used interviews to gather raw and reliable data direct
from the subjects. The researchers interviewed other researchers with a related study or
personalities with expertise on this topic. The researchers sought to interview the
following:
Manuel Enverga III, Ph.D. cand, is an instructor of European Studies Program in
Ateneo de Manila University from 2008-present, a Lecturer of Department of Sociology
and Anthropology in Ateneo de Manila University from 2010 to present.
Sylvio Mahiwo Ph.D is a professor in Asian Studies of University of the
Philippines who specialized in South East Asian Studies.
Emmanuel Nolasco, Edwin Padrilanan and Robert Medillo Jr. are Political
Science instructors in the Department of Social Science of Adamson University
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
32/68
32
News clippings. Through news articles the researchers gathered facts about events
regarding the overlapping claims in South China sea involving ASEAN members states
and Peoples Republic of China.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
33/68
33
Chapter IV
Presentation, Interpretation and Analysis of Data
This study focused on the inability of ASEAN to have a unified stand regarding
the territorial disputes on South China Sea involving ASEAN member states and Peoples
Republic of China. In the researchers pursuit ofa substantial study about the said topic,
they gathered different data related therein, presented and interpreted them in the most
convenient way, and analyzed them to answer the problems in this study.
Description of the South China Sea Dispute
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
34/68
34
In 2009, the rivalry for maritime rights in the South China Sea had emerged as an
important security issue in East Asia. In fact, it was stated that the South China Sea is the
new central theater of conflict in the world (Fravel 2012). The main idea of the South
China Sea dispute is a series of complex, legal, technical and geographic components.
The issues involving territory and sovereignty are the most pervasive security
problems the region faced especially after the cold war. South China Sea was considered
to be the major flashpoint of conflicts in East Asia. The significance of this specific
nautical area is the assumed presence of natural resources such as oil, hydrocarbon,
manganese nodules and fish after the cold war. It is reason why it was d escribed as the
geo-political focus of South East Asia and became a pivotal area of East Asia. Its
strategic location is straddling as the worlds second busiest international sea lane in
South East Asia (Boonpriwan, 2012).Two of the ASEAN members, the Philippines and
Vietnam have territorial disputes with China over the Spratly Islands and the Paracel
Islands. The main reason is the abundance of natural resources supposed to exist in the
South China Sea. Claimant countries assert territorial rights by formulating various
domestic measures to secure their marine interests. Seizure of fishing boats and face-offs
between patrol ships and the navies occur intermittently nowadays between China and the
Philippines and between China and Vietnam (Sanae, 2012).
ASEAN forms the basis of a regional community of Southeast Asian states. It
embodies fundamental norms, values, and practices that have socialized the ASEAN
states over time into adopting a shared regional identity. But it seems that ASEAN
identity is relatively weak in comparison to other identities (Narine, 1966).
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
35/68
35
The issue of the South China Sea dispute between ASEAN claimant states and
China will not be resolved because ASEAN itself cannot have a firm stand on the issue.
ASEAN has no capacity to mediate and it is limited to remindingits member states to adhere to International law and how the International
law is observed in their respective claims in terms of security and military
force. Compared to North Atlantic Treaty Organization that has itsmember states direct involvement together with the attacking force of
United States of America, malakas ang loob nila at tsaka NATO was
organized for utonical purposes. Ito ang kaibahan ng NATO paramakontra ang maaring gawin na drastic forces ng USSR. Though wala na
iyon may role pa din ang NATO to maintain peace dahil may military
capacity sila unlike ASEAN na wala naman talaga , kung iti-trace mo ang
history ng ASEAN ang purpose naman nila ay economic and cultural,hindi sila nag-aaspire ng regional security by way of having a regional
course to maintain such a condition of peace. Wala silang intention naganun kasi nga during that time they were living in a relative harmony
wala silang iniisip na giyera after world war II (Edwin Padrilanan,
personal communication, august 22, 2013)
ASEAN is not working alone because South East Asia is not just about ASEAN.
It is also about United States, Japan and Australia coming in. It is not just the concern of
SEA and in general, ASEANs stability is affected by its heritage differences because
they see the world differently. SEA is made up of multiple civilizationsthe Chinese,
Islamic, Hindu and the western. Because they are different culturally, they have different
ways of understanding the world so they have different understandings of very basic
things. The inability to unify, in the phase of an external opposition they are not going to
have a solid clear voice. Another feature of ASEAN is the way of forming a decision is
through consensus. It means that every country has a veto and if any country disagrees,
the policy will not push through. Any policy that ASEAN make is weak. It is very neutral
and if compared to the decision making of European Union where the decision making is
through voting, the good of the majority will be the decision. In ASEAN, any member
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
36/68
36
even it is a minority country can overrule the decision of the group. The unity is a lot
weaker in ASEAN compared to the EU and maybe even to other regional organization
(Manuel Enverga, personal communication, August 1, 2013).
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
37/68
37
South China Sea and the involved member states using their claims
Table 1.1 shows the basis of claims, significance of the Paracel Island and theapplicable rules on the claims of Peoples Republic of China, Republic of China (Taiwan)
and the Republic of the Philippines.
An Overview on the Paracel IslandThe Paracel Island is surrounded by productive fishing grounds and by potential oil and
gas reserves.
Concern China Taiwan VietnamBasis of Claims
*China produced amap with nineundefined dotted lines
*It claimed all theislands within the
nine-dash line. A1992 Chinese law
restated its claims inthe region.
*China had occupied
some of those islands.And in 1976, China
enforced its claimupon the ParacelIslands by seizing
them from Vietnam.
* China refers to the
Paracel Islands as theXisha Islands, andincluded them as part
of its Hainan Islandprovince.
*Taiwan's claims aresimilar to those ofChina.
* Vietnamacknowledgeshistoricalclaims to Paracel. It is
supported by theFrances statement in
the early 1930s assertsovereignty over the
islands.
* Vietnam contendsthat Japans rejection
to South China Seaislands in San
Francisco Treaty didnot specifically meanto return the territories
to China.
* The control andadministration in
Spratlys have sustainedcomplete during the
Nguyen Dynasty(French colonialgovernment andRepublic of Vietnam)
Significance of the
Paracel Island*Hydrocarbon
*Fisheries
-----SAME------ -----SAME------
Applicable rules: *Historical claim, *Abandonement and Occupation, *Terrorium Nullius
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
38/68
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
39/68
39
Table 3.1 shows the basis of claims, significance of the Spratly island group andthe applicable rules on the claims of Peoples Republic of China, Federation of Malaysia,
Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of the Philippines.
Overview on the Spratly Island Group
This Island consists large number of banks, reefs and cays. Spratly is considered importantbecause of the following (1) the land mass establish important sea lanes for commerce andtransport materials in the South China Sea. (2) the assumption that it seabed is holding the largestoil deposits in the world (3) it encompasses some of the richest living resources (4) controlling
this island means controlling the sea lanes from the Persian Gulf in the West to the South ChinaSea and the Pacific.
Concern China Vietnam Malaysia Philippines Brunei
Basis of
Claims
*Acknowledgesthe rule of
historicalwritings such as:
-Yuan dynastyproclamations
*Claiminghistoric title,
the claim ofVietnam overthe island istraced back in1927when the
government ofFrench sent
ship DeLanessan on
an expeditionto the island.
*1956,Vietnam sent
patrols to thearea.
*It is the recentactive claimant.
They issued anew officialmap in 1980which claimingcontinental
shelf in aportion of
Spratly group .
*Based on theright of coastalstate to
continentalshelf.
*Claimingtitle to the
occupationand
proclamationmade byThomas
Cloma.
*Using legalgrounds in
claiming theisland alsoknown as
Presidentialdecree
No.1596
Significanc
e of the
ParacelIsland
*Economic- thediscovery of Oil
became vital*Strategic- it isimportant
because of itslocation and the
sea lane whichused by all
---SAME---- -----SAME---- ---SAME--- --SAME-
--
Applicable Rules:*Historic Claim*Abandonment and Occupation , *Contiguity or PropinquityTheory, * Terrus Nullius
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
40/68
40
This figure shows the manner of institutionalizing the territorial disputes in South China Seawherein Vietnam and Philippines is recognize the presence of United States particularly in
military presence this both countries involving other non-claimant states to discontinue theincrease pressure of China. They are focusing on their efforts to ensure that they have a strong
expanding and deepening relations with U.S and other concerned countries liked Japan, SouthKorea and Australia. With the tensions that rise on past few years Philippines eager to pursuemilitary cooperation with U.S and Vietnam is also strict to carefully
Sources: Stirring up the South China Sea (II): Regional Responses
Crisis Grou Asia Re ort N229, 24 Jul 2012
Institutionalizing
the Territorial
Disputes Issue
Role of
United
States
Chinasperspective
on US role
Involvement of
other non-
claimant
*The greater military
presence United States to
mitigate the increase
tensions of China in SCS.
Vietnam government
opened the door to
U.S presence in theAsian waters.
Philippines engaged to
U.S military to
enhance its control
over the disputes
China has threefold
goal:1. Deepening claimant
countries economic
dependence on China.
2. Continuousdevelopment on the
disputed areas.
3. Avoidingconfrontation with U.S
By encouraging other
countries to support like
Japan, South Korea and
Australia to counter
balance the disputes and
strengthening Vietnam
and Philippines.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
41/68
41
1. Specific Question No 1.Why is ASEAN unable to have a unified stand on the
territorial dispute in South China Sea between member states and Peoples Republic
of China?
ASEAN is facing its failure to create a unified stand over the issue and it is
identified to be unsuccessful in controlling over the South China Sea. One of the major
reasons is the structure of the organization. The ASEAN Ministerial meeting is the
highest decision making body of the ASEAN and therefore this body creates the policies
and the course of actions taken by the organization. Given the reasons of cultural, social
and political difference of the states, the member states had led to a creation of a regional
organization that will protect their individuality through ASEAN way where a decision
making is based on the approval or disapproval of every state and not through the
affirmation of the majority.
The norms of non-interference cannot pursue other member state to follow.
However, the principle of non-interference ASEAN is strong since they can maintain and
keep their members in through not intervening with their domestic affairs. On the other
hand, ASEAN is weak because they cannot come up with concrete strong policies
regarding how to solve regional issues because it has an inability to face Peoples
Republic of China in terms of the controlling territorial dispute in the South China Sea.
The first reason is the members of the ASEAN are weak states since most of the South
East Asian countries were under a colonial rule. Furthermore, they did not fully
developed their bureaucracies which means they are still working on how they will
recover from the colonialist mentality and damages. By that they are really unable to
come up with a consensus policy that is applicable to all since politically, they cannot
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
42/68
42
intervene with each other. ASEAN is existent only for economic and cultural integration.
However, in terms of political matters such as successful integration and pursuing
binding policies, ASEANs capability is meagre. Because territorial claims are of
political nature, having a single approach to solve the problem is formidable for the
regional organization. In other words, ASEAN member states have remained weak
because they have to solve their domestic problems and give less attention to
international problems such as territorial disputes. Second reason is in relation to the
continuous involvement of great power in the region especially the involvement of
United States. U.S. considers itself as the pivot in Asia. (Robert Joseph Medillo, personal
communication, August 22, 2013).
The consensus norm in ASEAN is both its strong and weak point. It allows
smaller and weaker states to have their voices heard and the non-binding nature allows
the members states to oppose an initiative that will appear to be contrary to its national
policies. ASEAN puts every member state equally (Guan 2004). Since the responsibility
is spread among others, no member state can be found accountable for the concerns and it
also increases the ASEANs political and economic diversity. The consensus is powerless
to produce or to come up results on the territorial disputes (International Herald Tribune
and Asiaweek 1998). In connection with this, the inability of ASEAN to have a unified
stand or to have a successful integration is tied to a political culture which holds
sovereignty and non-interference sacred. ASEAN faces a tougher time to create
institutional structures that increase integration because it is covered within its norms. It
lacks third party enforcement or commitment institutions. The member states are not
willing to shift towards any decision making authority to a higher supranational bodies.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
43/68
43
Any bilateral disputes that arise between the member states are mostly handled through
quite diplomacy where the organization is not involved. ASEAN provided a passage to
manage and resolve territorial disputes among its members as a respond to its lack of
commitment institutions. But in the end it cannot resolve the issues (Guan 2004).
Another reason why ASEAN does not have a unified stand on the territorial
dispute in the South China Sea between member states and Peoples Republic of China is
because four of the ASEAN member states have their own claims in territory of South
China Sea. In realist perspective involves a sovereignty or sovereign power over the
territory. The conflict here is about who has the right to the territory. There is ASEAN
nonetheless it is not for political entity that will dictate to each member states what they
will do. It is created because for economic cooperation, but one cannot expect that the
ASEAN will have a unified stand among the member states (Nolasco, personal
communication, August 22, 2013).
ASEAN will play a role to the solution of the problem however, it will take some
process because some other members of ASEAN are not convinced that they have to be
involved. ASEAN wants to be involved in the solution but repelling will only occur in the
involved countries. A member who is not a party to the dispute will give its stand it will
just invite trouble for them. So as an organization ASEAN, what is its role to settle the
dispute and coming up with an acceptable solution to this problem that is acceptable to
the claimants? If ASEAN says that it is a territorial dispute for ASEAN, they will have to
be involved but it is only within the four so it cannot be called as an ASEAN territorial
claim. ASEAN has an interest regarding peace, freedom of navigation in the South China
Sea so ASEAN should help to promote a situation when there is peace. It is up to the
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
44/68
44
member countries to convince their fellow members to join. The claimant countries
should convince the other countries to side with them so they could have unity. This issue
is not an ASEAN dispute however, the organization is unified in terms of peaceful
settlements and human rights since these are for the benefit of all member states. The
ASEAN is not for a unified stand in the dispute but unified stand in the amicable and
peaceful settlements. The ASEAN way has both weakness and strength. It is weak
because the decision making is slow and they cannot come up with a common decision.
Its strength is because it keeps its member states in the organization. ASEAN way
respects sovereignty and non-interference (Sylvio Mahiwo, personal communication,
September 10, 2013).
ASEAN cannot come up with official stand or decision about the issue because
most of the member states have its own claim in the territory in South China Sea and
connect each of their position with the international body. Only the United Nations can
resolve the territorial dispute by way of having the use of policies that they formulate
prior to the emergence of the issue. ASEAN cannot come up with a single stance because
they know that the ASEAN itself cannot assert its will to the issue because a declaration
about the issue would be self-serving in a way that the member states will take their side
and they will use the organization to resolve the issue. ASEAN knows that they
themselves cannot resolve the issue because it is not simple regional dispute; the dispute
itself has an international character (Edwin Padrilanan, personal communication August
22, 2013).
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
45/68
45
Specific question no. 2 How will a unified stand affect the resolution of the territorial
dispute between ASEAN member states and Peoples Republic of China?
Having a unified stand on the issue of South China Sea has its advantages and
disadvantages.
European Union is able to have a declaration regarding border disputes of their
member states between states of other regional blocs. The organization will release a
statement that the disputed territory is a possession of their member states. The statement
will serve as a strong voice to move the decision towards the resolution of the dispute on
their side. The statement is a helping hand in pursuing the interest of their member state
(Fravel, 2006)
A unified stand from a regional organization will create an impression to the
international community that the organization has its strong will and a manifestation of
the camaraderie of its member states. This way, a message is implied to the community
that any of the member states of this organization cannot be underestimated because the
union they are in is courageous enough to stand for its members.
A united stand on the issue of the South China Sea between the ASEAN member
states and the Peoples Republic of China is a significant however in a given parameter.
A unified stand may secure the involved states since the organization is their bedrock for
their claims in the disputed waters nonetheless it would not be the means to end the
dispute.
The disadvantage starts from the fact that ASEAN member state themselves have
overlapping claims. It is a historical habit of China to divide its foes and picking them off
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
46/68
46
one by one and one possible strategy for ASEAN to resist the result of Chinas trap is to
be united rather than treating the conflict in the view point of bilateralism. The problem is
that the present ASEAN leaders prefer less formal approaches (Robert Joseph Medillo,
personal communication, August 22, 2013). The behaviour of ASEAN leaders is affected
by the binding norm of neutrality and non-interference. Passive states in the face of the
subject conflict is a manifestation of their fear of the trouble it will cause between them
and Peoples Republic of China in terms of security, economy and even the safety of their
citizens in mainland China.
The Philippines declared its assertion in the Scarborough Shoal against China
through State of the Nation Addresses of Philippine President Benigno Aquino III in
2011 and 2012. China in return, embargoed the bananas of the Philippines claiming that it
is infected by fruit flies. This situation is avoided by the non-involved states hence, they
stayed neutral in the SCS conflict.
If ASEAN in the future produce their declaration in the SCS conflict, it would be
effective only in asserting that China is not in accordance with the UNCLOS to acquire
any parcel or resources in South China Sea because of the defining Exclusive Economic
Zones stated in the aforementioned UN Convention law. But it will not be a cast-off to
settle the claims of the four member states. The involved states must convene that after a
united stand but it will not be admissible for them to plead another stand for their own
interest against any member state. Cooperation within the disputed waters by the
involved states would be a better decision.
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
47/68
47
Evidently, with the norm of neutrality and non-interference, a unified stand is not
an end to the SCS conflict because it will not end the territorial conflict within member
states because the stand will not take side in the expense of other members. The stand is
intended for the benefit of the whole and not to take side whether one of the member
states will solely own a disputed territory. The SCS dispute is not a conflict between two
states of different regional bloc. It is a complex issue involving co-members states and a
distant neighbour. Reconciling its member states that has their own territorial dispute is
the toughest test of ASEAN as an organization
Because the Spratlys issue involves nearly all members of ASEAN, a common
agenda would contribute to a better confidence and trust building. This common agenda
is important because the Spratlys issue is the biggest defense challenge of ASEAN
members involves in the South China Sea dispute (Mak 2001). The unified stand of
ASEAN is not against its own member states, but to a third party state involved in the
conflict.
China does not need ASEAN to settle the dispute on South China Sea as many
analysts supporting its position have noted that for China, the South China Sea dispute
can only be solved bilaterally with the other claimants, notably Vietnam and the
Philippines. Philippines and Vietnam concluded that they simply cannot rely on ASEAN
to back their claims inspite the organizations on-going discussions with Beijing on a
Code of Conduct for the South China Sea. The Philippines and Vietnam are courting the
United States as another actor increasingly seen as a balancing force against China in
Southeast Asia. Furthermore, regarding the negotiations of China to ASEAN member
states, during the July 2011 ASEAN Regional Forum, China agreed upon the guidelines
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
48/68
48
of the implementation of the Declaration of Parties in the South China Sea. This
statement has been already discussed between China and ASEAN countries (Crisis Group
Asia Report N223, 2012). The agreement of all parties to exercise self-restraint in the
conduct of the activities would complicate or escalate the disputes (Sulaiman 2012)
The claimant states should compromise and adopt soft approach towards China as
the preferred option but China will exhibit offensive force when opportunity arises.
Therefore, using soft approach towards China is not very effective because it is known to
be a political opportunistic and it will seize on any signs of weakness. The ASEAN
claimant states should also consider adopting hard-soft approach (Mak 2001).
If the ASEAN convey to the international community that they are united on the
SCS issue, against the China, China will hesitate to use hard power to claim the whole
SCS.
Specific Question no. 3 How will ASEAN affect the individual member states in the
conduct of their foreign relations in time of disputes?
Nature of ASEAN and its Structure
Association of South East Asian Nation or (ASEAN) was established in August 8,
1967 in Bangkok, Thailand by the five original member states namely: Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. The primary objectives of this regional
organization was stated in ASEAN Declaration that the association will accelerate
economic, social growth and cultural development among the region to ensure a peaceful
and prosperous community and also to promote regional stability through the attitude of
respecting the justice, the rule of law in their relationship with other countries members
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
49/68
49
and adherence to the principle of the United Nations Charter.(ASEAN Regional Forum,
Annual Security Outlook 2001).
This photograph shows the ten official members of ASEANBrunei, Cambodia, East Timor,Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Laos, Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam.
ASEAN aims to accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural
development in the region through joint endeavors and to promote regional peace and
stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law. Its vision is a concert of
Southeast Asian nations, outward looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity,
bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring
societies (Vannak, 2006).
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
50/68
50
This table illustrates the organizational structure of the Association of South East AsianCountries. There are four main bodies in the organizationthe ASEAN Economic Ministers,ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, ASEAN Finance Ministers Meeting and others that hold controlsthe different committees regarding specific concerns for the betterment of the member states.Under the ASEAN Economic Ministers is the Senior Economic Officials Meeting. Under the
ASEAN Ministerial Meetings are ASEAN Standing Committee, ASEAN Secretariat and theSenior Officials Meeting. Under the ASEAN Finance Ministers Meeting is the ASEAN SeniorFinance Officials Meeting.
The manner of selection of the ASEAN Chair and Vice Chair is based on
alphabetical rotation of all ASEAN Member Countries. The Ministerial meetings deal
with different concerns that are within the interest of the ten member states. It focuses
mainly on agriculture and forestry, trade, energy, environment, finance, information,
investment, labor, law, regional haze, rural development and poverty alleviation, science
and technology, social welfare, transnational crime, transportation, tourism, youth, the
AIA Council and the AFTA Council. There are 29 committees of senior officials and
122 technical working groups supporting these ministerial bodies. The ASEAN Summit
is headed by a Joint Ministerial Meeting (JMM) that is composed of Foreign and
Economic Ministers. Under the Chairmanship of the Foreign Minister of the country-in-
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
51/68
51
chair, the ASEAN Standing Committee is mandated to consolidate the work of the
Association in between the annual ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM).
The ASEAN Secretariat
The ASEAN Secretariat is chaired by the Secretary-General of ASEAN. It is
mandated to initiate, advise, coordinate, and implement ASEAN activities. The
operational budget of the ASEAN Secretariat is prepared annually and funded through
equal contribution of all ASEAN Member Countries (Vannak, 2006).
Principles of ASEAN in Connection with ASEAN Decision Making
Conferring to the ASEAN Charter, the ASEAN is bound to respect the
fundamental importance of amity and cooperation, and the principles of sovereignty,
equality, territorial integrity, non-interference, consensus and unity in diversity. The
organization also adheres to the renunciation of aggression and of the threat or use of
force or other actions in any manner inconsistent with international law, reliance on
peaceful settlement of dispute, non-interference in the internal affairs of ASEAN Member
States and enhanced consultations on matters seriously affecting the common interest of
ASEAN. The integration of ASEAN would consider having a solid foundation through
supranational executive body anchored on treaties, intergovernmental legislative body
founded on treaties and a supranational court of justice. This model is being used by the
European Union and the rule of majority shall prevail and not consensus as a basis of a
decision.
The highest decision-making body in ASEAN is the annual meeting of the
ASEAN Heads of State and Government. ASEAN has eleven Dialogue Partners namely
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
52/68
52
Australia, Canada, China, European Union, India, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of
Korea, the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Nations Development
Program.
Their integration is tied to a political culture which holds the principle of
sovereignty and non-interference vital (Guan, 2004). This is manifested through the
organizations way of decision makingthe ASEAN way. Compared to the European
Union where the organizationsdecision making is through voting and the majority will
decide for the good of all the members, ASEAN decides through consensus. All the ten
member states have their veto power. Any member, even a minority country can overrule
a decision. This kind of decision came from the principle of decision making from the
Javanese to resolve political and personal differences (Hacke, 2003).
The consensus allows smaller and a minority state to be considered and its non-
binding nature allow member-states to oppose an initiative that run contrary to its
national policies and customaries. It puts every member state in equal footing (Guan,
2004). The responsibility is spread among the group, no member can be found
accountable for the consequences and it increases ASEANs political and economic
diversity. This way of decision making of ASEAN provides and inter-governmental sense
of regional identity that the organization cannot pool a sovereignty in a way that is
beneficial for the entire region. The organization has not yet to integrate dissimilar
political cultures of its member states by having a super structure of politics. This
structure is only viable if the member states are able to change its different government
structure into a more homogenized form of political set-up (Pitsuwan, 2001). The
ASEAN way avoids bureaucratic and supra-national arrangements and re-affirms the
8/11/2019 Thesis Abut Legaspi Dimaano Final
53/68
53
principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other
states. Hence, the Association offers a unique model of cooperation based on specific
cultural attributes. ASEAN way provides an informal process of interaction within the
ASEAN framework through which the member states communicate to each other and
reach out with the avoidance of common decisions. It has existed as an abstract of a
vague concept for it consists the features of high level of informality, the practice of
quiet diplomacy, the art of conflict avoidance, exercise of self-restraint, solidarity and the
practice of consensus (Emmers, 2003).
Despite the critics of the ASEAN way, it is considered by some academicians as
strength of the organization. Because it puts every member nation into equal footing
during decision making it keeps its member from withdrawing from the organization
(Mahiwo, personal communication, 2013). If compared to European Union members
culturally, ASEAN members are diverse. Europe is a very old region and it was perceived
as a region way back ancient Greece. They recognize that they are part of one region and
represent one cultural universe, one cultural heritage, one way of thinking about the
world, one set of symbols inspite of their different languages. Whereas in South East
Asia, a region that was invented by the British and the American is World War II to label
that part of the world for them to send their ships easily since these two nations have
colonies in Asia during pre and post-World War II. These states were not aware for a
long period of time that the region existed. Each state has a diff