Open main menu

Territorial disputes in the South China Sea

Territorial claims in the South China Sea on (based on outdated / unofficial documents / maps)
South China Sea claims and agreements
Map of various national outposts in the Spratly Islands

The South China Sea disputes involve both island and maritime claims among several sovereign states within the region, namely Brunei, the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan), Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. An estimated US$3.37 trillion worth of global trade passes through the South China Sea annually,[1] which accounts for a third of the global maritime trade.[2] 80 percent of China's energy imports and 39.5 percent of China's total trade passes through the South China Sea.[1]

The disputes include the islands, reefs, banks, and other features of the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, Scarborough Shoal, and various boundaries in the Gulf of Tonkin. There are further disputes, including the waters near the Indonesian Natuna Islands, which many do not regard as part of the South China Sea.[3] Claimant states are interested in retaining or acquiring the rights to fishing stocks, the exploration and potential exploitation of crude oil and natural gas in the seabed of various parts of the South China Sea, and the strategic control of important shipping lanes.

Since 2013, the People's Republic of China has resorted to island building in the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands region.[4] These actions have been met with a wide international condemnation, and since 2015 the United States and other states such as France and the United Kingdom have conducted freedom of navigation operations (FONOP) in the region.[5] In July 2016, an arbitration tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ruled against the PRC's maritime claims in Philippines v. China.[6] The tribunal did not rule on the ownership of the islands or delimit maritime boundaries.[7][8] The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) stated that they did not recognize the tribunal and insisted that the matter should be resolved through bilateral negotiations with other claimants.[9]

Disputes in the South China Sea regionEdit

Summary of disputes
Area of dispute
Brunei
China
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Taiwan
Vietnam
The nine-dash line
Vietnamese coast
Sea area north of Borneo
South China Sea islands
Sea area north of the Natuna Islands
Sea area west of Palawan and Luzon
Sabah area
Luzon Strait

The disputes involve both maritime boundaries and islands.[10] There are several disputes, each of which involves a different collection of countries:

  1. The nine-dash line area claimed by the Republic of China, later the People's Republic of China (PRC), which covers most of the South China Sea and overlaps with the exclusive economic zone claims of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
  2. Maritime boundary along the Vietnamese coast between the PRC, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
  3. Maritime boundary north of Borneo between the PRC, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, and Taiwan.
  4. Islands, reefs, banks and shoals in the South China Sea, including the Paracel Islands, the Pratas Islands, Macclesfield Bank, Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands between the PRC, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and parts of the area also contested by Malaysia and the Philippines.
  5. Maritime boundary in the waters north of the Natuna Islands between the PRC, Indonesia and Taiwan[11]
  6. Maritime boundary off the coast of Palawan and Luzon between the PRC, the Philippines, and Taiwan.
  7. Maritime boundary, land territory, and the islands of Sabah, including Ambalat, between Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines.
  8. Maritime boundary and islands in the Luzon Strait between the PRC, the Philippines, and Taiwan.

History of the South China Sea disputeEdit

 
South-east facing aerial view of PRC-settled Woody Island. The island is also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam.

During World War II, the Empire of Japan used the islands in the South China Sea region for various military purposes and asserted that the islands were not claimed by anyone when the Imperial Japanese Navy took control of them.[12][13] Historical accounts note that at least France had controlled some of the features in the region during the 1930s.[14] After the war, Imperial Japan had to relinquish control of the islands in the South China Sea in the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco which, however, did not specify the new status of the islands.[15] The People's Republic of China made various claims to the islands during the 1951 treaty negotiations and the 1958 First Taiwan Strait Crisis.[16]

Chinese claims in the South China sea are delineated in part by the nine-dash line. This was originally an "eleven-dashed-line," first indicated by the Kuomintang government of the Republic of China in 1947, for its claims to the South China Sea. When the Communist Party of China took over mainland China and formed the People's Republic of China in 1949, the line was adopted and revised to nine dashes/dots, as endorsed by Zhou Enlai.[17] China's 1958 declaration described China's claims in the South China Sea islands based on the nine-dotted line map.[18] The legacy of the nine-dash line is viewed by some PRC government officials, and by the PRC military, as providing historical support for their claims to the South China Sea.[19]

The Geneva Accords of 1954,[20] which ended the First Indochina War, gave South Vietnam control of the Vietnamese territories south of the 17th Parallel, which included the islands in the Paracels and Spratlys.[21] Two years later the North Vietnamese government claimed that the People's Republic of China is the lawful claimant of the islands, while South Vietnam took control of the Paracel Islands.[21]

In 1974, when a North Vietnamese victory in the Vietnam War began to seem probable, the PRC used military force in the Paracel Islands and took Yagong Island and the Crescent group of reefs from South Vietnam.[14][22] The government of the PRC wanted to prevent the Paracel islands from falling under the control of North Vietnam, which at the time was an ally of the Soviet Union. The PRC had fought a brief border war with the Soviet Union in 1969 and did not want to have a Soviet presence near its coast, which is why China resorted to "counterattack in self-defense".[22] The United States, in the middle of détente with the PRC, gave a non-involvement promise to the PRC, which enabled the People's Liberation Army Navy to take control of the South Vietnamese islands.[23]

In the later half of 1970s, the Philippines and Malaysia began referring to the Spratly Islands as included in their own territory.[24] On 11 June 1978, President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines issued Presidential decree No. 1596, declaring the north-western part of the Spratly Islands (referred to therein as the Kalayaan Island Group) as Philippine territory.[24]

In 1988, PRC and Vietnam fought each other near the Johnson Reef.[25] The PRC had obtained a permit from the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission to build five observation posts for the conduction of ocean surveys, and one of the permitted observation posts was allowed to be located in the Spratly islands region.[26] The PRC chose to built its observation post on the Fiery Cross Reef, which was isolated from the other islands in the region and was not occupied by any state at the time. When it started to build the observation post in the terra nullius Fiery Cross Reef, Vietnam sent its navy to the area to monitor the situation.[27] The two states clashed near the Johnson Reef, and after the clash, China occupied the Johnson Reef.[26]

 
Fiery Cross Reef being transformed by the PRC in May 2015

In 1994, the PRC occupied Mischief Reef, located some 250 miles from the Philippine coast. Occupation was made in the middle of an energy resources race in the Spratlys, where China lacked a presence while the other countries were starting their oil exploration businesses.[27] Mischief Reef marked the first time when the PRC had a military confrontation with the Philippines,[28] an ally of the United States.

The occupation and/or control of most parts of the Spratly and Paracel islands has not changed significantly since the middle of 1990s.[29][circular reference] The PRC controls all of the features in the Paracels. In the Spratlys, Vietnam controls the greatest number (29) of features, while the Philippines has control of eight features, Malaysia five, the PRC five, and the Republic of China one. Balance of power in the Spratlys has greatly shifted since 2013, when the PRC started its island building activities in the region.[4]

In 2012, the PRC took the Scarborough Shoal as a response to the Philippine navy's actions of stopping Chinese fishing boats in the area.[30][31]

2011 agreementEdit

On 20 July 2011, the PRC, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam agreed a set of preliminary guidelines on the implementation of the DOC (Declaration of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea) which would help resolve disputes.[32] The agreement was described by the PRC's assistant foreign minister, Liu Zhenmin, as "an important milestone document for cooperation among China and ASEAN countries".[32] Some of the early drafts acknowledged aspects such as "marine environmental protection, scientific research, safety of navigation and communication, search and rescue and combating transnational crime", although the issue of oil and natural gas drilling remains unresolved. "Following the spirit of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), China and ASEAN countries actively advanced the consultations on the Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea,"[33] with the forecast that the COC will be completed by 2021.[34]

Chinese objection to Indian naval presence and oil explorationEdit

On 22 July 2011, the INS Airavat, an Indian amphibious assault vessel on a friendly visit to Vietnam, was reportedly contacted 45 nautical miles from the Vietnamese coast in the disputed South China Sea by a party identifying itself as the PLA Navy and stating that the ship was entering PRC waters.[35][36] A spokesperson for the Indian Navy explained that as no ship or aircraft was visible, the INS Airavat proceeded on her onward journey as scheduled. The Indian Navy further clarified that "[t]here was no confrontation involving the INS Airavat. India supports freedom of navigation in international waters, including in the South China Sea, and the right of passage in accordance with accepted principles of international law. These principles should be respected by all."[35]

In September 2011, shortly after the PRC and Vietnam signed an agreement seeking to contain a dispute over the South China Sea, India's state-run explorer, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) said that its overseas investment arm, ONGC Videsh Limited, had signed a three-year agreement with PetroVietnam for developing long-term co-operation in the oil sector, and that it had accepted Vietnam's offer of exploration in certain specified blocks in the South China Sea.[37] In response, PRC Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu, without referring to India by name, stated:

"China enjoys indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea and the island. China's stand is based on historical facts and international law. China's sovereign rights and positions are formed in the course of history and this position has been held by Chinese Government for long. On the basis of this China is ready to engage in peaceful negotiations and friendly consultations to peacefully solve the disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime rights so as to positively contribute to peace and tranquillity in the South China Sea area. We hope that the relevant countries respect China's position and refrain from taking unilateral action to complicate and expand the issue. We hope they will respect and support countries in the region to solve the bilateral disputes through bilateral channels. As for oil and gas exploration activities, our consistent position is that we are opposed to any country engaging in oil and gas exploration and development activities in waters under China's jurisdiction. We hope the foreign countries do not get involved in South China Sea dispute."[38][39]

An Indian foreign ministry spokesman responded, "The Chinese had concerns, but we are going by what the Vietnamese authorities have told us and we have conveyed this to the Chinese."[38] The Indo-Vietnamese deal was also denounced by the Chinese state-run newspaper Global Times.[37][39]

Chinese policy on the South China SeaEdit

In Spring 2010, PRC officials reportedly communicated to US officials that the South China Sea was "an area of 'core interest' that is as non-negotiable" and on par with Taiwan and Tibet on the national agenda. However, Beijing appears to have backed away from that assertion in 2011.[40][41][42]

In October 2011, the PRC's Global Times newspaper, published by the Communist Party People's Daily group, editorialised on South China Sea territorial disputes under the banner "Don't take peaceful approach for granted". The article referenced incidents earlier that year involving the Philippines and South Korea detaining PRC fishing boats in the region. "If these countries don't want to change their ways with China, they will need to prepare for the sounds of cannons. We need to be ready for that, as it may be the only way for the disputes in the sea to be resolved."[43] Responding to questions about whether this reflected official policy, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman stated the country's commitment "to resolving the maritime dispute through peaceful means."[44]

In July 2014, Professor Alan Dupont of the University of New South Wales was reported as saying that the Chinese government appeared to be directing its fishing fleet into disputed waters as a matter of policy.[45]

In August 2019, China's President Xi Jinping told the Philippines' President Rodrigo Duterte that China would not recognise or abide by the Arbitration decision. This occurred during a visit by Duterte to Beijing, with discussions between the two leaders.[46] Such a stance by Beijing is in line with the July 2019 publishing of a Chinese White Paper, "China's National Defense in the New Era," which details China's armed strength and repeatedly mentions deployment in the South China Sea.[47]

Oil developmentEdit

The area is said to be rich in oil and natural gas deposits; however, the estimates are highly varied. The Ministry of Geological Resources and Mining of the People's Republic of China estimated that the South China Sea may contain 17.7 billion tons of crude oil,[48] whereas the oil rich country of Kuwait has 13 billion tons. In the years following the announcement by the PRC ministry, the claims regarding the South China Sea islands intensified. However, other sources claim that the proven reserves of oil in the South China Sea may only be 7.5 billion barrels, or about 1.1 billion tons.[49] According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA)'s profile of the South China Sea region, a US Geological Survey estimate puts the region's discovered and undiscovered oil reserves at 11 billion barrels, as opposed to a PRC figure of 125 billion barrels.[50] The same EIA report also points to the wide variety of natural gas resource estimations, ranging from 190 trillion cubic feet to 500 trillion cubic feet, likely located in the contested Reed Bank".[50]

The South China Sea is dubbed by the PRC as the "second Persian Sea."[51] The state-owned China Offshore Exploration Corp. planned to spend 200 billion RMB (US$30 billion) in the next 20 years to exploit oil in the region, with the estimated production of 25 million metric tons of crude oil and natural gas per annum, at a depth of 2000 meters within the next five years.[52]

The Philippines began exploring the areas west of Palawan for oil in 1970. Exploration in the area began in Reed Bank/Tablemount.[53] In 1976, gas was discovered following the drilling of a well.[54] However, the PRC's complaints halted the exploration.[citation needed] On 27 March 1984, the first Philippine oil company discovered an oil field off Palawan, which is an island province bordering the South China Sea and the Sulu Sea.[55] These oil fields supply 15% of annual oil consumption in the Philippines.[citation needed]

Vietnam and Japan reached an agreement early in 1978 on the development of oil in the South China Sea.[citation needed] By 2012 Vietnam had concluded some 60 oil and gas exploration and production contracts with various foreign companies.[56] In 1986, the "White Tiger" oil field in the South China Sea came into operation, producing over 2,000 tons of crude oil per year, followed by "The Bear" and "Dragon" oil fields.[57] Offshore exploration activities in 2011 increased Vietnam's proven oil reserves to be the third largest in the Asia-Pacific region.[58] However, the country is a net importer of oil products.[59] In 2009 petroleum accounted for 14 percent of Vietnamese government income, down from 24 percent in 2004.[60]

China's first independently designed and constructed oil drilling platform in the South China Sea is the Ocean Oil 981 (海洋石油981). The major shareholders are J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (19%), Commonwealth Bank of Australia (14%), T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and affiliates (6%), and BlackRock, Inc. (5%).[61] It began operation on 9 May 2012 in the South China Sea, 320 kilometres (200 mi) southeast of Hong Kong, at a depth of 1,500 m and employing 160 people.[62] On 2 May 2014 the platform was moved near to the Paracel Islands,[63] a move Vietnam stated violated their territorial claims.[64] Chinese officials said it was legal, stating the area lies in waters surrounding the Paracel Islands which China occupies and militarily controls.[65]

Competing claims in the oil and gas-rich South China Sea have stifled the development and exploitation of these resources. To break from this, the Philippines and China agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Cooperation on Oil and Gas Development in November 2018, where joint-use of, and not ownership over assets underlies the agreement. In the past, aggressive Chinese naval patrols deterred Manila from exploring gas deposits in disputed waters, like the Reed Bank, such that this type of agreement may allow for the claimant states to jointly develop the natural gas in the offshore area. The mechanism of joint agreements is not new, with Malaysia and Vietnam having forged a similar mechanism in 1992, while Malaysia and Thailand reached understandings in 1979 and 1990 over the development of gas-rich disputed waters.[66]

Incidents involving fishermenEdit

Prior to the dispute, fishermen from involved countries tended to enter each other's controlled islands and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) leading to conflicts with the authorities that controlled the areas as they were unaware of the exact borders. As well, due to depletion of the fishing resources in their maritime areas, they were forced to fish in the neighbouring countries' areas.[67][68][69]

A Taiwanese fisherman was machine gunned to death by the coast guard of the Philippines in May 2013.[70][71]

In the spring of 2014, China and Vietnam clashed again over China's Haiyang Shiyou oil rig in Vietnam's EEZ. The incident left seventeen Vietnamese injured and damaged both China's and Vietnam's ships.[72]

Although Indonesia is not part of claims in the South China Sea dispute, after Joko Widodo became President of the country in 2014, he instituted a policy in 2015 that, if any foreign fishermen were caught illegally fishing in Indonesian waters, their vessels would be destroyed. The president wanted to make maritime resources, especially fisheries, a key component of his administration's economic policy.[73][74] Since the policy's initiation, fishing vessels drawing from many neighbouring countries were destroyed by Indonesian authorities. On 21 May 2015, around 41 fishing vessels from China, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines were destroyed.[75] On 19 March 2016, the China Coast Guard prevented the detention of Chinese fishermen by Indonesian authorities after Chinese fishermen were caught fishing near the waters around Natuna, leading to a protest by Indonesian authorities; the Chinese ambassador was subsequently summonsed as China had considered the areas to be "Chinese traditional fishing grounds".[76][77] Further Indonesian campaigns against foreign fishermen resulted in the destruction of 23 fishing boats from Malaysia and Vietnam on 5 April 2016.[78]

Until late 2016, most fishing vessels blown up by Indonesian authorities were Vietnamese fishing vessels.[79][80] Although Indonesian authorities increased their patrols to detect foreign fishing vessels, the areas in the South China Sea had already become known for Indonesian pirates, with frequent attacks on Malaysian, Singaporean and Vietnamese vessels as well as leading to hijacking such as the MT Orkim Harmony and MT Zafirah hijacking incidents. The continuing war against foreign fishermen by Indonesia led to protests by Vietnam in late 2016, when a Vietnamese fisherman was killed after being shot by Indonesian authorities.[68][69] Beside that, Filipino pirates of Moro Pirates from the Sulu Sea also reaching South China Sea when a Vietnamese fisherman was killed by Filipino pirates in late 2015.[81]

Security summitsEdit

The Shangri-La Dialogue serves as the "Track One" exchange forum on security issues surrounding the Asia-Pacific region. The South China Sea territorial disputes has dominated proceedings at the conference in recent years.[82][83][84] The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific is the "Track Two" forum for dialogue on security issues.[85][86]

In February 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama initiated the US-ASEAN Summit at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California for closer engagement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Territorial disputes in the South China Sea were a major topic, but its joint statement, the "Sunnylands Declaration", did not name the South China Sea, instead calling for "respect of each nation's sovereignty and for international law". Analysts believe it indicates divisions within the group on how to respond to China's maritime strategy.[87][88]

Non-claimant viewsEdit

Independent analysisEdit

The vast majority of international legal experts have concluded that China's claims based on historical claims are invalid.[89]

The position of China on its maritime claims based on UNCLOS and history has been ambiguous, particularly with the nine dash line map.[90][91] For example, in its notes verbales in 2011, the first phrase stated that China has undisputed sovereignty over the islands and the adjacent waters, suggesting China is claiming sovereignty over its territorial waters, a position consistent with UNCLOS.[90] However, the second phrase in its notes verbales stated that China enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters along with the seabed and subsoil contained in this region, suggesting that China is claiming sovereignty over all of the maritime space (includes all the geographic features and the waters within the nine dash line).[90] The third phrase indicates support for basing their claims on historical basis as well.[90] Recently in its notes verbales in 2011, China has explicitly stated that it claims the territorial waters and all of the islands in which each island has its own exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.[91] A major problem with this claim is that it fails to distinguish between geographic features considered as "islands" or "rocks" under UNCLOS.[91]

Japanese scholar Taoka Shunji criticised Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for trying to falsely portray China as a threat to Japan and that China was invading neighbours such as the Philippines. He pointed out that the Spratly Islands were not part of the Philippines when the US acquired the Philippines from Spain in the Treaty of Paris in 1898 and that Japanese-ruled Taiwan itself had annexed the Spratly Islands in 1938 in a move that was never challenged by the US-ruled Philippines, which never asserted that it was their territory. He also pointed out that other countries did not need to do full land reclamation since they already controlled islands and that the reason China engaged in extensive land reclamation is because they needed it to build airfields since China only has control over reefs.[92]

JapanEdit

Japan has used "normative power" via strategic foreign aid to certain claimants in the dispute such as the Philippines and Vietnam in order to assert its presence in the region as promoting the "rule of law at sea."[93]

CambodiaEdit

Cambodia has backed China over the dispute in ASEAN meetings, preventing consensus over unified ASEAN action.[94] Anti-Vietnamese sentiment due to Vietnam's conquest of previously Cambodian lands, giving the Vietnamese a privileged status and encouragement of Vietnamese settlers in Cambodia during French colonial rule, and the occupation of Cambodia after the ouster of the Khmer Rouge has led to anti-Vietnamese feelings against ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia and against Vietnam, and in turn has led to pro-China sentiment among the Cambodian government and the Cambodian opposition, including in the South China Sea.[95]

East TimorEdit

The sweeping maritime claims of gas and oil rich territory maintained and disputed by Australia against the tiny country of East Timor and flouting of international law have been compared to the situation in the South China Sea, causing the East Timorese government to deprecate China's claims and stance.[96]

IndonesiaEdit

Since early in the South China Sea dispute, Indonesia has repeatedly asserted its position as a non-claimant state in the South China Sea dispute,[97] and often positioned itself as an "honest broker".[98] However, parts of China's unilaterally claimed nine-dash line overlap Indonesia's exclusive economic zone near the Natuna islands. Although China has acknowledged Indonesia's sovereignty over the Natuna islands,[99] the PRC has argued that the waters around the Natuna islands are Chinese "traditional fishing grounds". Indonesia quickly dismissed China's claim, asserting that China's nine-dash line claim over parts of the Natuna islands has no legal basis.[100] In November 2015, Indonesia's security chief Luhut Panjaitan said Indonesia could take China before an international court.[101] Indonesia filed a comment with the Permanent Court of Arbitration regarding China's claim in the case of Philippines v. China.

Chinese fishing vessels – often escorted by Chinese coastguard ships – have repeatedly been reported to have breached Indonesian waters near the Natuna islands. On 19 March 2016, for example, Indonesian authorities tried to capture a Chinese trawler accused of illegal fishing in Indonesian waters, and arrested the Chinese crew. They were prevented from towing the boat to harbour by a Chinese coast guard vessel which reportedly "rammed" the trawler in Indonesian waters. "To prevent anything else occurring, the Indonesian authorities let go of the Chinese boat and then left toward Natuna, still with eight fishermen and the captain on board," said Arrmanatha Nasir, a spokesman for Indonesia's Foreign Ministry. Indonesia still has the Chinese crew in custody.[102] On 21 March 2016, minister for fisheries and maritime affairs Susi Pudjiastuti summoned the Chinese ambassador, Xie Feng, and discussed this matter.[102] Indonesia insists that they have the right to prosecute the Chinese trawler crew, despite Beijing's demand to release their eight fishermen. Arif Havas Oegroseno, the government official of maritime security, said that the Chinese claim of "traditional fishing grounds" was not recognised under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This incident prompted security minister Luhut Pandjaitan to deploy more troops and patrol boats, and to strengthen the Ranai naval base in the area.[103]

Following the clashes, on 23 June 2016, Indonesian President Joko Widodo visited the Natuna islands on a warship to demonstrate Indonesia's authority. He led a high-level delegation, which included the Commander of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) and state ministers. Security Minister Luhut Panjaitan said it was meant to send a "clear message" that Indonesia was "very serious in its effort to protect its sovereignty".[104]

Following the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling on 12 July 2016, Indonesia called on all parties involved in the territorial dispute to exercise self-restraint and to respect applicable international laws.[105]

Indonesia challenged the Chinese nine-dash historical claim by arguing that if the historical claims can be used on presenting the territorial naval claims, Indonesia might also use its historical claims on the South China Sea by referring to the ancient influence of the Srivijaya and Majapahit empires.[106]

LaosEdit

Laos has supported China by refusing to accept the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling on China's sovereignty claims in the South China Sea.[107]

SingaporeEdit

Singapore has reiterated that it is not a claimant state in the South China Sea dispute and has offered to play a neutral role in being a constructive conduit for dialogue among the claimant states. However, Singapore hopes that China will obey international laws.[108]

ThailandEdit

Thailand as one of the member of ASEAN played a coordinating role in facilitating China and ASEAN members involved in the dispute in hope of reaching peaceful resolution. Despite its domestic political turmoil, the Thai government relied on its Ministry of Foreign Affairs' expertise on international dispute. It took the initiative to hold several meetings with parties concerned. Thailand's first attempt was hosting the ASEAN–China Senior Officials' Meeting Retreat in Pattaya, Thailand 2012. Via this meeting, Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister called for a joint development of resources in South China Sea. Bangkok was viewed as an South China Sea neutral player because it is not a claimant and did not have disputes in the South China Sea with China. After several meetings, the 6th ASEAN–China SOM on DOC was the first official consultation on the Code of Conduct (COC) was formed with all parties agreement to push forward the drafting of COC. Thai-China relationship was generally seen as positive. Thailand's neutral position enabled it to act as a mediator and influence discussions among parties involved.[109]

United StatesEdit

In 1974, the PRC got a non-involvement promise from the United States when it occupied the Yagong Island and the Crescent Group from the South Vietnam.[23] The United States officially addressed the South China Sea dispute for the first time in 1995, when its statement focused on the peaceful resolution of disputes, peace and stability, freedom of navigation, neutrality over the question of sovereignty and respect of maritime norms.[110] The 1995 statement did not name any states by their names.

The 1995 policy was changed in 2010, when the administration of the President Obama felt that even though the United States cannot take sides in the dispute, it still has to make a statement that it is not passively accepting the assertive actions taken in the region.[111] At the July 2010 Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum meeting in Hanoi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech on resolving the disputes in the region without coercion and unequivocally stating that the South China Sea was a matter of U.S. national interest.[112][113] Her comments were countered by China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi as "in effect an attack on China," who warned the United States against making the South China Sea an international issue or multilateral issue.[114]

In 2012, the United States State Department press statement identified the PRC as an assertive state in the region and communicated the United States worries about the developments in the area.[115] Also in 2012, Secretary Clinton testified in support of congressional approval of the Law of the Sea Convention, which would strengthen U.S. ability to support countries that oppose Chinese claims to certain islands in the area.[116] On 29 May 2012, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry expressed concern over this development, stating that "non-claimant Association of South East Asian Nations countries and countries outside the region have adopted a position of not getting involved into territorial disputes."[117] In July 2012, the United States Senate passed resolution 524, initially sponsored by Senator John Kerry, stating (among other things) the United States' strong support for the 2002 declaration of conduct of parties in the South China Sea, reaffirms the United States' commitment to assist the nations of Southeast Asia to remain strong and independent, and supports enhanced operations by the United States armed forces in the Western Pacific.[118]

In 2014, the United States responded to China's claims over the fishing grounds of other nations by saying that "China has not offered any explanation or basis under international law for these extensive maritime claims."[119] USN CNO Jonathan Greenert then pledged American support to the Philippines in its territorial conflicts with the PRC.[120] The Chinese Foreign Ministry asked the United States to maintain a neutral position on the issue.[121] In 2014 and 2015, the United States continued freedom of navigation operations, including in the South China Sea.[122] Sources closer to the Pentagon have also said that the US administration is planning to deploy some more naval assets within 12 nautical miles of the Spratly Islands. In response to this announcement, Beijing issued a strict warning and said that she would not allow any country to violate China's territorial waters in the name of "Freedom of Navigation".[123] In May 2015, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter warned China to halt its rapid island-building.[124] On 27 October 2015, the US destroyer USS Lassen navigated within 12 nautical miles of reclaimed land in the Subi Reef as the first in a series of "Freedom of Navigation Operations".[125] This is the first time since 2012 that the US has directly challenged China's claims of the island's territorial limit.[126] On 8–9 November 2015, two US B-52 strategic bombers flew near artificial Chinese-built islands in the area of the Spratly Islands and were contacted by Chinese ground controllers but continued their mission undeterred.[127]

President Trump's administration has increased the freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea region as a part of their dynamic force employment strategy.[128] The new U.S. strategy is to be unpredictable and deploy ships to the area without notice.[129] As of May 2019, the United States has conducted four freedom of navigation operations in the Spratlys during the early 2019.[128] In 2019, the United States has also twice flown B-52 Stratofortress bombers near the PRC-claimed islands in the Spratlys.[130]

See alsoEdit

ReferencesEdit

CitationsEdit

  1. ^ a b "How much trade transits the South China Sea?". China Power. 2 August 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
  2. ^ "Review of Maritime Transport 2018" (PDF). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
  3. ^ Keck, Zachary (20 March 2014). "China's Newest Maritime Dispute". The Diplomat. Retrieved 12 February 2015.
    *Vaswani, Karishma (19 October 2014). "The sleepy island Indonesia is guarding from China". Retrieved 19 October 2014.
    *R.C. Marshall, Andrew (25 August 2014). "Remote, gas-rich islands on Indonesia's South China Sea frontline". Reuters. Retrieved 12 February 2015.
  4. ^ a b "China Island Tracker". Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
  5. ^ Freund, Eleanor. "Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: A Practical Guide". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
  6. ^ The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China) Archived 12 July 2016 at the Wayback Machine, PCA Press Release, 12 July 2016
  7. ^ "PCA Press Release: The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China) | PCA-CPA". pca-cpa.org. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
  8. ^ Perlez, Jane (12 July 2016). "Tribunal Rejects Beijing's Claims in South China Sea". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
  9. ^ David Tweed; Ting Shi (12 July 2016). "China's South China Sea Claims Dashed by Hague Court Ruling". Bloomberg. Retrieved 11 December 2016.
  10. ^ "An interactive look at claims on the South China Sea". The Straits Times. Retrieved 29 February 2016.
  11. ^ John Pike. "Natuna Islands". globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 30 July 2015.
  12. ^ Chung, Chris (2016). "Drawing the U-Shaped Line: China´s Claim in the South China Sea, 1946–1974". Modern China. 42 (1): 38–72. doi:10.1177/0097700415598538.
  13. ^ Pan, Zhongqi (2007). "Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The Pending Controversy from the Chinese Perspective". Journal of Chinese Political Science. 12 (1): 72.
  14. ^ a b Samuels, Marwyn (2013). Contest For the South China Sea. London: Routledge. pp. 55–65.
  15. ^ Morley, James William; Nishihara, Masashi (1997). Vietnam joins the World. New York: M.E. Sharpe. p. 124.
  16. ^ Fravel, M. Taylor (2011). "China´s Strategy in the South China Sea" (PDF). Contemporary Southeast Asia. 33 (3): 298.
  17. ^ Granados, Ulises (2006). "Chinese Ocean Policies Towards the South China Sea in a Transitional Period, 1946—1952". China Review. 6 (1): 153–181. JSTOR 23462012.
  18. ^ "Declaration of the Government of the People´s Republic of China on China´s Territorial Sea". People´s Republic of China Foreign Ministry. 4 September 1958. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
  19. ^ Zhiguo, Gao; Bing Bing, Jia (2013). "The Nine-Dash Line in the South China Sea: History, Status, and Implications". The American Journal of International Law. 107 (1): 98–124. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0098 – via JSTOR.
  20. ^ "Declaration by the Government of the French Republic". Retrieved 30 May 2019.
  21. ^ a b Nguyen, Hong Thao (2012). "Vietnam's Position on the Sovereignty over the Paracels & the Spratlys: Its Maritime Claim". Journal of East Asia International Law. 1.
  22. ^ a b Yoshihara, Toshi (2016). "The 1974 Paracels Sea Battle: A Campaign Appraisal". Naval War College Review. 69 (2): 41–65.
  23. ^ a b Garver, John (1992). "China´s Push through the South China Sea: The Interaction of Bureaucratic and National Interests". The China Quarterly. 132: 1001.
  24. ^ a b "Presidential Decree no. 1596 – Declaring Certain Area Part of the Philippine Territory and Providing for their Government and Administration". Chan Robles Law Library. 11 June 1978. Retrieved 5 February 2014.
  25. ^ Garver, John (1992). "China´s Push through the South China Sea: The Interaction of Bureaucratic and National Interests". The China Quarterly. 132: 1013.
  26. ^ a b Koo, Min Gyo (2009). Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia. Dordrecht: Springer. p. 154.
  27. ^ a b Fravel, M. Taylor (2008). Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China´s Territorial Disputes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 183–185.
  28. ^ Zha, Daojiong; Valencia, Mark (2001). "Mischief reef: Geopolitics and implications". Journal of Contemporary Asia. 31 (1): 86–103. doi:10.1080/00472330180000061.
  29. ^ "List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands". Wikipedia. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
  30. ^ Kao, Shawn (2014). "Scarborough Shoal Dispute, China´s Assertiveness, and Taiwan´s South China Sea Policy". International Journal of China Studies. 5 (1): 153–158.
  31. ^ Fravel, M. Taylor (2016). "Threading the Needle: The South China Sea Disputes and U.S.-China Relations". Massachusetts Institute of Technology Political Science Department.
  32. ^ a b Martina, Michael (20 July 2011). "RPT-China, ASEAN set 'guidelines' on sea row, but no deal expected". Reuters. Retrieved 20 July 2011.
  33. ^ "China rebukes accusation of militarizing SCS". NP news 24. 2 August 2019. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
  34. ^ "China welcomes progress in South China Sea issue amid tensions". Bangkok Post. 31 July 2019. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
  35. ^ a b "China face-off in South China Sea" DNA India report
  36. ^ B Raman (2 September 2011). "INS Airavat Incident: What does it Portend?". South Asia Analysis Group. Archived from the original on 15 October 2011.
  37. ^ a b "China paper warns India off Vietnam oil deal" Reuters article, 16 October 2011.
  38. ^ a b B Raman. "South China Sea: India should avoid rushing in where enen US exercises caution". Archived from the original on 24 September 2011. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
  39. ^ a b "China warns India on South China Sea exploration projects", The Hindu, 15 September 2011.
  40. ^ Edward Wong (30 March 2011). "China Hedges Over Whether South China Sea Is a 'Core Interest' Worth War". New York Times. Retrieved 1 September 2012.
  41. ^ Bonnie S. Glaser (April 2012). "Armed Clash in the South China Sea". East Asia. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 1 September 2012. For example, China may explicitly refer to the South China Sea as a core interest; in 2010 Beijing hinted this was the case but subsequently backed away from the assertion.
  42. ^ Phil Stewart; John Ruwitch (12 October 2010). "U.S. sees crisis fears easing over South China Sea". Reuters. Hanoi. Retrieved 1 September 2012.
  43. ^ "Don't take peaceful approach for granted". Global Times. China. 25 October 2011. Archived from the original on 25 October 2011. Retrieved 25 October 2011.
  44. ^ "China May Resort to Force in Sea Disputes, Global Times Says". uyghuramerican.org. 25 October 2011. Retrieved 4 September 2019. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters today in Beijing that China 'adheres to the strategy of peaceful development. [...] Sowing discord and hostility will only complicate [the issue]'
  45. ^ Pasick, Adam (29 July 2014). "How China's Enormous Fishing Fleet Is Being Used As a Surrogate Navy". www.defenseone.com. Quartz. Retrieved 29 July 2014.
  46. ^ Beijing tells Duterte it won’t honor South China Sea ruling, Associated Press/Navy Times, 1 September 2019
  47. ^ Cordesman, Anthony H. "China's New 2019 Defense White Paper: An Open Strategic Challenge to the United States, But One Which Does Not Have to Lead to Conflict" (PDF). Center for Strategic & International Studies. Retrieved 18 September 2019.
  48. ^ "China's multilateralism and the South China Sea Conflict: Quest for hegemonic stability?" (PDF). Thesis for M.S.Sc. National University of Singapore. 2006. Retrieved 4 October 2014. quoting Mark. J Valencia, "China and South China Sea Disputes: Claims and Potential Solutions in the South China Sea", Adelphi paper 298, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995)
  49. ^ John Pike. "South China Sea Oil and Natural Gas". globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 4 October 2014.
  50. ^ a b "South China Sea – Analysis". U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 7 February 2013. Retrieved 11 December 2016.
  51. ^ "南海经济国防意义皆重要 誉称"第二个波斯湾"". Tencent News. Retrieved 30 July 2015.
  52. ^ "Oil bonanza in South China Sea". Archived from the original on 23 April 2011.
  53. ^ C. Michael Hogan (2011) South China Sea Topic ed. P. Saundry. Ed.-in-chief C.J.Cleveland. Encyclopedia of Earth. National Council for Science and the Environment. Washington DC
  54. ^ "CMOL – Camago-Malampaya Oil Leg Project". Archived from the original on 19 March 2008. Retrieved 15 March 2008.
  55. ^ Map of the Philippines showing the location of Palawan
  56. ^ Leszek Buszynski (Spring 2012). "The South China Sea: Oil, Maritime Claims, and U.S.—China Strategic Rivalry" (PDF). The Washington Quarterly.
  57. ^ "Joint Venture "Vietsovpetro"". Archived from the original on 2 March 2014. Retrieved 2 March 2014.
  58. ^ Carpenter, J. William (5 October 2015). "The Biggest Oil Producers in Asia". Investopedia. Retrieved 9 November 2017.
  59. ^ "Vietnam". www.worldenergy.org. Retrieved 9 November 2017.
  60. ^ "Vietnam". RevenueWatch.org. Retrieved 2 March 2014.
  61. ^ "chiefgroup.com.hk 02883 CHINA OILFIELD SERVICES LIMITED Company Profile". Archived from the original on 6 October 2014. Retrieved 4 October 2014.
  62. ^ 11 May 2012, 南海钻井平台上工人直升机上下班 Archived 13 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine, NetEase News (in Chinese)
  63. ^ "Not the usual drill". The Economist. Singapore. 10 May 2014. Retrieved 14 May 2014.
  64. ^ "Vietnam says China's oil rig movement into Sth China Sea is "illegal"". Reuters. 5 May 2014.
  65. ^ Zhu, Ningzhu (7 May 2014). "China urges against Vietnamese interference in territorial water exploration". Xinhuanet. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
  66. ^ Trajano, Julius Cesar (March 2019). "Resource Sharing and Joint Development in the South China Sea: Exploring Avenues of Cooperation" (PDF). NTS Insight. Singapore: RSIS Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre) (IN19–01).
  67. ^ Tessa Jamandre (3 June 2011). "China fired at Filipino fishermen in Jackson atoll". VERA Files. ABS-CBN News. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
    * Jeremy Lanson (15 March 2016). "Sarawak fishermen missing after allegedly encroaching into Indonesian waters". The Borneo Post. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
    * "Filipino fishermen detained, beat up by Malaysian navy". Reuters. GMA News. 23 May 2016. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
    * "Sabah is being robbed of seafood". Daily Express. 21 August 2016. Retrieved 11 November 2016. Vietnamese fishermen appear to be more desperate to source for seafood and are conducting illegal fishing activities in Malaysian waters through deceit. It is understood the appetite for fish is growing in the Asian region, coupled with shrinking stocks, and this is driving fishermen further and further from their shores to source for supply. Vietnamese fishermen are forced to look elsewhere for fish due to heavy pollution of its waters by a Taiwanese steel plant operating in Vietnam under a joint venture with the Vietnamese Government seen as a major scandal.
  68. ^ a b "Việt Nam protests Indonesian attack on fishermen". Vietnam News Agnecy. Việt Nam News. 11 November 2016. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
  69. ^ a b "Vietnam protests deadly shooting of fisherman by Indonesian navy". VnExpress. 11 November 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2016. The ministry's spokesman Le Hai Binh made the statement at a press conference on Thursday, regarding the incident on 21 October when an Indonesia’s naval ship chased and shot at two Vietnamese fishing boats, injuring three of 13 fishermen on board. One succumbed to serious injuries later.
  70. ^ P. Chow (11 September 2014). The US Strategic Pivot to Asia and Cross-Strait Relations: Economic and Security Dynamics. Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 241–. ISBN 978-1-137-36077-9.
  71. ^ "Philippine coast guard kills Taiwanese fisherman in disputed waters". International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). 14 May 2013. Retrieved 30 May 2017. Taipei has demanded that Manila issue an apology, punish those responsible, and compensate the victims by May 15 or the Taiwanese government will place a ban on the entry of any new Filipino workers to the country.
  72. ^ Bui, Nhung T. (4 July 2016). "Managing anti-China nationalism in Vietnam: evidence from the media during the 2014 oil rig crisis". The Pacific Review. 0 (2): 169–187. doi:10.1080/09512748.2016.1201132. ISSN 0951-2748.
  73. ^ Lindsey Bever (15 March 2016). "Indonesia's harsh response to illegal fishing: Blowing up ships". The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
  74. ^ Syed Azahedi Syed Abdul Aziz (28 March 2016). "Heat rises over maritime dispute". New Straits Times. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
  75. ^ "Indonesia sinks boats from China, PH, others to deter illegal fishing—reports". Agence France-Presse. Philippine Daily Inquirer. 21 May 2015. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
  76. ^ "China's Coast Guard Rams Fishing Boat to Free It From Indonesian Authorities". The New York Times. 22 March 2016. Retrieved 15 May 2016.
  77. ^ "Indonesia protests against Chinese 'breach of sovereignty'". BBC News. Retrieved 15 May 2016.
  78. ^ Trefor Moss (5 April 2016). "Indonesia Blows Up 23 Foreign Fishing Boats to Send a Message". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
  79. ^ Prashanth Parameswaran (21 August 2015). "Vietnam 'Deeply Concerned' by Indonesia's War on Illegal Fishing". The Diplomat. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
  80. ^ Khanh Phuong (13 September 2016). "Biggest number of Vietnamese fishermen to be released". VGP News. Talk Vietnam. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
  81. ^ Trung Nguyen (1 December 2015). "Killing of Vietnamese Fisherman in Contested Waters Sparks Outrage". Voice of America. Retrieved 11 November 2016. Earlier Phan Huy Hoang, chairman of Quang Ngai Association of Fisheries, said the fishermen told him that Philippine bandits might be involved in the case. For sure, they are foreign attackers, but their nationality is not known.
    * "Fishing association claims Philippine boat crew shot dead Vietnamese fisherman". Dantri News International. 2 December 2015. Archived from the original on 14 November 2016. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
    * "Vietnam orders investigation into the shooting death of a fisherman in Vietnamese waters". Tuổi Trẻ. 2 December 2015. Retrieved 11 November 2016. A local fishery association said the murderers were Philippine.
  82. ^ South China Sea set to dominate Singapore security summit – Reuters, date: 1 June 2016
  83. ^ 5 highlights of Shangri-La Dialogue 2016 – The Straits Times, date: 6 June 2016
  84. ^ What is the Shangri-La Dialogue and why is it so important? – South China Morning Post, date: 3 June 2016
  85. ^ "Regional Security Outlook 2014" (PDF). CSCAP. Retrieved 26 November 2015.
  86. ^ "Regional Security Outlook 2015" (PDF). CSCAP. Retrieved 26 November 2015.
  87. ^ Obama Unveils New ASEAN Economic Initiative at Sunnylands Summit, The Diplomat, 18 February 2016
  88. ^ US seeking stronger trade ties with Asean, Inquirer Global Nation], 17 February 2016
  89. ^ Malik, Mohan (2013). "HISTORICAL FICTION: China's South China Sea Claims". World Affairs. 176 (1): 83–90. JSTOR 43554768.
  90. ^ a b c d Beckman, Robert (2013). "The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea". The American Journal of International Law. 107 (1): 142–163. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0142. JSTOR 10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0142.
  91. ^ a b c Dupuy, Florian; Dupuy, Pierre-Marie (2013). "A Legal Analysis of China's Historic Rights Claim in the South China Sea" (PDF). The American Journal of International Law. 107 (1): 124–141. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0124. JSTOR 10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0124.
  92. ^ Taoka, Shunji (21 September 2015). Translated by Rumi Sakamoto. "'China Threat Theory' Drives Japanese War Legislation". The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. 13 (38–5). Retrieved 26 September 2015.
  93. ^ Asplund, Andre (March 2018). "Normative power Japan: settling for 'Chinese democracy'". Contemporary Japan. 30 (1): 117–134. doi:10.1080/18692729.2018.1422913.
  94. ^ "Cambodia 'blocking' Asean sea dispute consensus". Bangkok Post. Vientiane. 23 July 2016. Retrieved 11 December 2016.
  95. ^ Greer, Tanner (5 January 2017). "Cambodia Wants China as Its Neighborhood Bully". Foreign Policy.
  96. ^ De Luce, Dan (28 June 2016). "Timor-Leste: Australia Is Behaving Like China in Disputed Waters". Foreign Policy.
  97. ^ Liza Yosephine (21 June 2016). "Minister echoes Indonesia's stance on South China Sea". The Jakarta Post. Jakarta.
  98. ^ Prashanth Parameswaran (26 March 2015). "No, Indonesia's South China Sea Approach Has Not Changed – Jokowi's recent comments need to be put in perspective". The Diplomat.
  99. ^ Miles Yu (19 November 2015). "Et tu, Jakarta?". Washington Times.
  100. ^ Klaus Heinrich Raditio, Researching China’s recent behavior and strategy in the South China Sea for his PhD at the University of Sydney (18 July 2016). "Indonesia 'speaks Chinese' in South China Sea". The Jakarta Post.
  101. ^ "Indonesia says could also take China to court over South China Sea". Reuters. 11 November 2015.
  102. ^ a b "South China Sea: Indonesia summons Chinese ambassador as fishing dispute escalates". The Guardian. 21 March 2016.
  103. ^ "Indonesia vows to prosecute Chinese trawler crew in South China Sea dispute". The Guardian. 24 March 2016.
  104. ^ "South China Sea: Indonesian leader visits Natuna Islands amid growing tensions". ABC News. 23 June 2016.
  105. ^ Liza Yosephine (13 July 2016). "Indonesia's statement on South China Sea dissatisfying: China's experts". The Jakarta Post. Jakarta.
  106. ^ Siswo Pramono (12 July 2016). "China's nine-dash line revisited". The Jakarta Post. Jakarta.
  107. ^ Krishnamoorthy, Nandini (15 July 2016). "Laos backs China over South China Sea dispute, rejects Hague ruling".
  108. ^ "Singapore suggests interim solution to South China Sea dispute". Channel News Asia. Retrieved 1 March 2016.
  109. ^ Kaewkamol Pitakdumrongkit. “Coordinating the South China Sea Issue: Thailand's roles in the code of conduct development.” INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC Vol.15 Issue 3 (2015): 403–431.
  110. ^ Fravel, M. Taylor (2014). Policy Report: U.S. Policy Towards the Disputes in the South China Sea Since 1995. Singapore: S. Rajanatnam School of International Studies. pp. 3–4.
  111. ^ Bader, Jeffrey (2012). Obama and China´s Rise: An Insider´s Account of America´s Asia Strategy. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. pp. 104–105.
  112. ^ Clinton, Hillary. "Speech at ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi, July 23, 2010". U.S. State Department. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
  113. ^ Fravel, M. Taylor (2014). "Policy Report: U.S. Policy Towards the Disputes in the South China Sea Since 1995". S. Rajanatnam School of International Studies: 5.
  114. ^ David Martin Jones; Michael Lawrence Rowan Smith; Nicholas Khoo (1 January 2013). Asian Security and the Rise of China: International Relations in an Age of Volatility. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-78100-462-3.
    Denny Roy (20 August 2013). Return of the Dragon: Rising China and Regional Security. Columbia University Press. p. 219. ISBN 978-0-231-52815-3.
  115. ^ 2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/08/196022.htm "Press Statement: South China Sea" Check |url= value (help). U.S. State Department. 2 August 2012. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
  116. ^ Hachigian, Nina (12 June 2012). "China's Rise Is A Big Reason to Ratify the Law of the Sea Convention". Issues. Center for American Progress. Retrieved 13 March 2015.
    "Written Testimony of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary U.S. Department of State" (PDF). Center for Oceans Law and Policy. University of Virginia. 23 May 2012. Retrieved 13 March 2015.
  117. ^ "China, U.S. square off on South China Sea". UPI. 29 May 2012. Retrieved 30 May 2012.
  118. ^ John Kerry (23 July 2012). "S.Res. 524: A resolution reaffirming the strong support of the United States for the 2002 declaration of conduct of parties …". govtrack.us. Civic Impulse, LLC. Retrieved 3 September 2012.
  119. ^ Williams, Carol J. (10 January 2014). "China asserts control over vast sea area, angering neighbors, U.S". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 12 January 2014.
  120. ^ Mogato, Manuel (13 February 2014). "U.S. admiral assures Philippines of help in disputed sea". Reuters. Retrieved 13 February 2014.
  121. ^ "Beijing slams US Navy official for 'aiding Philippines' remarks". Want China Times. 16 February 2014. Archived from the original on 21 February 2014. Retrieved 15 February 2014.
  122. ^ "Dragon Breathes Fire Over S. China Sea, Worries US". Free Press Journal. Mumbai, India. 28 February 2015. Retrieved 27 March 2015.
    "US freedom of navigation operations challenge China's maritime security". Want China Times. Taiwan. 28 March 2015. Archived from the original on 1 April 2015. Retrieved 27 March 2015.
    Alexander, David (25 March 2015). "U.S. military challenged maritime claims of 19 countries in 2014". United States: Reuters. Retrieved 27 March 2015.
  123. ^ "Beijing Slams Washington's Plans for 'Incursion' Into South China Sea". sputniknews.com. Retrieved 10 October 2015.
  124. ^ "Defense secretary’s warning to China: U.S. military won’t change operations". The Washington Post. 27 May 2015.
  125. ^ "After Months of Waiting, US Finally Begins Freedom of Navigation Patrols Near China's Man-Made Islands". The Diplomat. 27 October 2015.
  126. ^ Blanchard, Ben; Shalal, Andrea (28 October 2015). "Angry China shadows U.S. warship near man-made islands". Reuters. Retrieved 26 November 2015.
  127. ^ "US B-52 bombers flew near disputed islands in South China Sea, says Pentagon". The Guardian. 12 November 2015.
  128. ^ a b Panda, Ankit (6 May 2019). "South China Sea: 2 US Navy Destroyers Conduct Freedom of Navigation Operation in Spratlys". The Diplomat. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
  129. ^ Larter, David (16 June 2018). "Jim Mattis' 'dynamic force employment' concept just got real for the US Navy". Defense News. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
  130. ^ Doornbos, Kaitlyn (15 March 2019). "US sends B-52 bombers over South China Sea for second time in a week". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 30 May 2019.

SourcesEdit

Further readingEdit

External linksEdit