The South China Sea, a crucial maritime passage connecting the Pacific and Indian Oceans, has long been a focal point of geopolitical tensions. Its strategic significance lies in its vast resources and shipping lanes and the overlapping territorial claims among coastal states, primarily China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan.

The historical roots of the South China Sea dispute can be traced back centuries, characterized by competing territorial claims and maritime activities. Ancient Chinese dynasties claimed sovereignty over parts of the sea, asserting historical rights based on ancient maps and records. However, modern geopolitical dynamics have intensified the dispute since the mid-20th century. One of the primary sources of contention is the sovereignty over various island chains, reefs, and shoals within the South China Sea. The Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, and Scarborough Shoal are among the most disputed territories, claimed by multiple countries for their strategic location and potential oil and gas reserves.

China’s assertion of its Nine-Dash Line a demarcation line encircling much of the South China Sea has raised concerns among neighboring states and the international community.

Based on its Nine-Dash Line claim, China asserts historic rights over almost the entire South China Sea. It has undertaken extensive land reclamation and construction activities, transforming several features into military outposts. Vietnam claims sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, asserting historical ties and geographical proximity. Vietnam has actively engaged in diplomatic efforts to counterbalance China’s assertiveness.

The Philippines challenged China’s claims under international law, particularly by filing a case with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2013. The court ruled in favor of the Philippines, invalidating China’s historical claims and affirming the Philippines’ rights to its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Malaysia and Brunei assert territorial claims over parts of the South China Sea, albeit less prominently than other claimants. They emphasize the importance of multilateral dialogue and adherence to international law in resolving disputes.

The South China Sea’s significance extends beyond territorial disputes; it serves as a vital maritime corridor for international trade, with over one-third of global shipping passing through its waters. As such, ensuring the region’s freedom of navigation and overflight is paramount for maintaining global economic stability. However, the militarization of disputed features and the imposition of excessive maritime claims by certain claimants pose significant challenges to navigational freedom.

China has constructed artificial islands equipped with airstrips, radar facilities, and military installations, raising concerns about its intentions and increasing the risk of miscalculation or conflict.

The South China Sea dispute has broader implications for regional stability, affecting the claimant states and other stakeholders with vested interests in the region.  The dispute reflects broader geopolitical rivalries, particularly the competition between China and the United States for influence in the Asia-Pacific region. The U.S., through its freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) and alliances with regional partners, seeks to uphold a rules-based order and counterbalance China’s assertiveness. The militarization of disputed features escalates tensions and increases the risk of conflict. The presence of naval vessels, fighter jets, and missile systems heightens the potential for accidental clashes or confrontations between rival claimants.

Despite the contentious nature of the dispute, diplomatic initiatives remain crucial for mitigating tensions and fostering cooperation. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) facilitates dialogue and confidence-building measures among claimant states and external powers. The South China Sea’s economic significance underscores the importance of maintaining stability for regional prosperity. Disruptions to maritime trade routes or resource extraction activities could have far-reaching consequences for global markets and economic growth.

Efforts to address the South China Sea dispute have been multifaceted, encompassing diplomatic negotiations, legal arbitration, and confidence-building measures. However, achieving a durable and comprehensive resolution remains elusive due to entrenched national interests and geopolitical complexities. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a legal framework for resolving maritime disputes and delineating maritime entitlements. The arbitral tribunal’s ruling in the Philippines v. China case affirmed the primacy of UNCLOS in adjudicating conflicting claims. It clarified the legal status of various features in the South China Sea.

ASEAN and China have been negotiating a Code of Conduct (COC) to manage tensions and prevent conflicts in the South China Sea. While progress has been slow, the COC framework reflects a commitment to peaceful resolution and adherence to international norms.

Track II initiatives involving non-governmental organizations, think tanks, and academic institutions are complementary in fostering dialogue and generating creative solutions to the South China Sea dispute. These informal forums provide avenues for brainstorming ideas and building consensus outside formal diplomatic channels.

The South China Sea remains a contentious flashpoint with far-reaching regional stability and global security implications. As the competing claims persist and geopolitical rivalries intensify, the imperative for constructive dialogue, adherence to international law, and confidence-building measures becomes increasingly urgent. A peaceful and rules-based resolution to the South China Sea dispute is essential for fostering trust, cooperation, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.