South China Sea
The South China Sea dispute has long being discussed and also complicated. Controlling the
Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea is not only claiming the countries’ territory, but mainly gaining economic benefits of the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ). These benefits include natural resources: the US Energy Administration estimates that
11 billion barrels (bbl) of oil reserves and 190 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas reserves under the South China Sea. The US Geological Survey (USGS) in 2010 estimates that an additional 5-to-22 billion barrels of oil and between 70-to-290 Tcf of gas lies under the South
China Sea. The other benefit is the trade passage. The total trade passage is 5.3 trillion per year, and 23% of it is from the US.
There are different strategies for the settlement of the dispute. One of them is applying the dispute to the International Tribunal Law of Sea (ITLOS), like what the Philippines did on
March, 2014. However, this strategy is unpractical for the situation. First, the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), part 15, section 3, article 298 states that if the issue includes sovereignty of continents or islands, it is not necessary to have compulsory arbitration. That is, China is able to stop the suing at any time. Second, the arbitration results are not promised to be practiced since there are no precise laws to ensure it, which causes many countries to refuse obeying.
It may be possible for building a multilateral framework between the ASEAN and China, and cooperate together to make the most of exploiting the resources in South China Sea. It would be beneficial to all countries for putting aside the political claims and discuss economy first, like the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) signed between Taiwan and
China. While signing treaties of distributing benefits, different country can contribute different resources such as technology
Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea is not only claiming the countries’ territory, but mainly gaining economic benefits of the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ). These benefits include natural resources: the US Energy Administration estimates that
11 billion barrels (bbl) of oil reserves and 190 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas reserves under the South China Sea. The US Geological Survey (USGS) in 2010 estimates that an additional 5-to-22 billion barrels of oil and between 70-to-290 Tcf of gas lies under the South
China Sea. The other benefit is the trade passage. The total trade passage is 5.3 trillion per year, and 23% of it is from the US.
There are different strategies for the settlement of the dispute. One of them is applying the dispute to the International Tribunal Law of Sea (ITLOS), like what the Philippines did on
March, 2014. However, this strategy is unpractical for the situation. First, the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), part 15, section 3, article 298 states that if the issue includes sovereignty of continents or islands, it is not necessary to have compulsory arbitration. That is, China is able to stop the suing at any time. Second, the arbitration results are not promised to be practiced since there are no precise laws to ensure it, which causes many countries to refuse obeying.
It may be possible for building a multilateral framework between the ASEAN and China, and cooperate together to make the most of exploiting the resources in South China Sea. It would be beneficial to all countries for putting aside the political claims and discuss economy first, like the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) signed between Taiwan and
China. While signing treaties of distributing benefits, different country can contribute different resources such as technology