ABSTRACT
The conflicting claims of the parties involved in the dispute have been categorised into historical claims of discovery and occupation and those resting on the extension of the sovereign jurisdiction under interpretations of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. The Spratly and the Paracel Islands are claimed by China, Taiwan and Vietnam mainly on historical grounds whereas the Philippines and Malaysia base their claims (on the Spratlys) on international law, including the natural prolongation of the continental shelf provision. On the issue of the level of consultations, there is an incongruity between ASEAN’s emphasis on multilateral negotiations. on the one hand. and bilateralism, on the other, as professed by China, which prefers to address the issue with countries directly concerned through friendly consultations and negotiations. ASEAN’s support for the full and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and expectations for the early conclusion of the Code of Conduct clearly reveal its vision for safeguarding a rules-based maritime order in the South China Sea. Against this background, the chapter analyses the structural intractability of rival claims to sovereignty, and examines the premise of the dispute in the context of international law and its implications for regional peace and security.
