Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea

The South China Sea serves as an important region of world trade and military control
that many countries would like to possess. Nevertheless, in the 1970s, territorial disputes in the
South China Sea began to arise. Littoral countries started to proclaim islands that are located in
the depth of the sea as their national territories. The value of the South China Sea led to the crisis
between coastal states, and it is subject to ongoing development. The initial causes of territorial
disputes are natural resources, control of trade, and historical claims; however, in order to
understand the issue in-depth, one could look at the three main theories of international relations:
realism, neo-liberalism, and constructivism.

South China Sea is located in Southeast Asia and lies between China, Vietnam, the
Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. Through the South China Sea, $3.6 trillion worth of
goods are transported annually, equivalent to 30% of world trade (Martin). Besides goods, the
sea possesses large quantities of natural resources like fish, oil, and natural gas. This makes this
sea one of the most important water economic regions for world trade and an important region
for resource extraction. Therefore, many littoral countries near the South China Sea have tried to
establish their control over the region.
China is one of the main actors in the crisis who wants to establish as much control as
possible over the South China Sea through different means, sometimes even with direct
confrontation. China claims the entire South China Sea as its own, including the islands. Control
of the islands would give China permission to regulate the flow of goods and establish its control
over the natural resources that the sea has. Following the international law of the sea, any island

2

or land that is located with a connection to the sea possesses an exclusive economic zone from
which only the country owner may collect taxes, extract natural resources, and maintain a
military without notice within 200 nautical miles from the shore (United Nations, Part V, Article
56-57). Therefore, China is trying to claim the control of the islands so it would be able to
control most of the South China Sea. In order to do that, China increases the size of the islands or
even builds new ones to establish its ownership of the land. The Chinese government also tried
to stop military intelligence-gathering operations from other littoral states, arguing that the sea is
their “exclusive economic zone”. However, by international law of the sea, all countries that are
adjacent to the sea are permitted to gather military information, expect 200 nautical miles from
the shore (Center for Preventive Action).

(Source of the picture: https://www.e-ir.info/2021/01/16/the-taiwan-
factor-in-the-clarification-of-chinas-u-shaped-line/)

3
Nonetheless, China is threatening other states. Recently, the Taiwanese government said
that it might be the China Coastal Guard, who cut the internet cable that goes to Taiwan (Tobin).
If in fact that was true, it means that China violated International Sea Law (United Nations, Part
VII, Article 113). The cutting of the cable is an explicit act of enmity towards Taiwan. In recent
times, the Chinese government tried to attack and threaten Taiwan many times, and the cutting of
internet cables could be a part of some bigger plan. The Chinese Coast Guard also used military
technologies and water cannons against Philippine ships that are trying to deliver supplies to the
Philippine-controlled island. That island is in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone and it is
also an act of direct confrontation from the Chinese side (Center for Preventive Action).
Besides China, there are a few more main actors in the South China Crisis. They are
Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Brunei. All of these countries claim control over some
islands in the sea. The Philippines, for example, claims control over 2 islands, while Taiwan and
China claim 90% of the islands in the sea as their national territories. However, aggressive or
provocative actions are mainly performed by China. It is rare that other shore countries would be
hostile. Predominantly, other countries in the South China Sea defend themselves from the
People’s Republic of China. While Taiwan has the same claim as China, its actions are much less
assertive, and Taiwan does not pursue patrols in the sea nor confrontations unlike China (Center
for Preventive Action). However, in order to understand why the crisis occurred and why each
country behaves as it was described earlier, we could focus on three main international relations
theories.

4

In a realist view, the most important capability of each country is power. Therefore, states
try to gain as much power as possible. They need power in order to protect themselves from
threats from other states. Where the most powerful is the most protected state. There are three
powers that each country tries to pursue: it is natural, tangible, and intangible power. Littoral
states in the South China Sea try to capture as many islands as possible in order to increase their
natural and tangible powers. Currently, China is the most powerful state in the region and aims to
further increase its power. Because of the imbalance of powers in the region towards China, it
could seek to engage in confrontation against other states since they are not as powerful as
China. Besides, China is the main actor in capturing islands in the South China Sea and threatens
other countries. If states fail to comply, it leads to consequences and the probability of future
conflict. However, the conflict in the South China Sea is still lasting today because there is a
constant fight for power, as realists could suggest. While China is the most powerful state within
the region, it could become even more powerful.

In a neo-liberalism view, the important thing is rationalism, international organizations, and
the fact of interdependency. Liberalism can explain this crisis as that those states in the South
China Sea see their economic, military, and influential interests in acquiring islands. However,
those states try not to engage in war because it is costly, and international organizations would
not approve confrontation actions. The rational thought of each state tells them that war might
not be the best choice, simultaneously evaluating that if they were to begin a war, international
organizations would become their enemies too. In addition, littoral states in the South China Sea
are interdependent. The fact that each of these states buys, sells, and produces goods for each

5
other is stopping them from engaging in conflict with one another. When one state produces
something that another state does not, and this matter is highly important for the first state, it
makes them interdependent. This consists of a system where one state buys goods, and another
one collects money for selling. When this connection would cease, both of them would have a
negative effect on their economies and therefore, well-being. Another reason why the conflict
does not involve the actual war is because of the tit-for-tat strategy. The strategy means that if
China, for example, did something bad to Taiwan, Taiwan would do something bad to China in
response. A recent example is that the China Coast Guard cut Taiwanese internet cables. In
response, Taiwan created a statement, accusing the Chinese government of cutting the cables
(Tobin). That statement created a negative Chinese perspective in international politics.

(Source of the photo: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/
world-looks-elsewhere-china-stirs-trouble-south-china-sea)

6

At the same time, constructivistivism theory may explain this conflict as an issue of
identities. In a constructivism view, there is an idea of identities which each country possesses.
Those identities are associated with ideas and shape the behavior, and actions of a state. There
are two general types of identities: convergent and divergent identities. The share of convergent
identities implies that these states would have enhanced potential to cooperate and have mutual
trust in each other. While divergent identities have the potential to trigger confrontation, rivalry
and miscommunication. Therefore, constructivism may explain the crisis in the South China Sea
by saying that the coastal states have different identities and are not willing to cooperate.
China may have an identity of being a superpower or conqueror, and because of its identity,
it could be a cause of its aggressive policy in the South China Sea. The Chinese identity of
“superpower” may imply by itself that China has to be the most powerful and strongest country
in the world and region. Therefore, it may affect Chinese actions in order to follow its identity,
which in turn affects Chinese behavior in the South China Sea and aggressive behavior.
However, other countries like the Philippines may have a different identity. The Philippines may
identify itself as a country that just protects what it has and does not claim to be a powerful state,
not like China. While the Philippines identity suggests protection and it tries to save its islands,
Chinese identity implies domination in the region and the world. Therefore, China tries to gain
control over the islands and the dissimilarity of identities may cause confrontation between two
states and consequently the continuity of the crisis. While not agreeing to communicate with
other states regarding the crisis, which causes even more confrontation.

7
Overall, the crisis that has occurred in the South China Sea in the 1970s continues to
persist. The original cause of the crisis could be seen in the demand for natural resources that the
sea possesses, economic value of trade routes, and historic claims. Nonetheless, it is worthy of
examination of the causes of the crisis through three main theories of international relations.
Realism theory could suggest that the crisis occurred because of the demand for power for states
and protection of themselves against others. Neo-Liberalism may explain that the crisis has
occurred and is still in place because of economic, military, and other influential interests that are
present in the South China Sea. While constructivism might explain this conflict as a matter of
states’ identities. However, it is important to not only choose one theory to follow and research.
The world and international crises could be only fully explained and examined through a
combination of all theories.

Tsimafei Yankovich

Bibliography

Council on Foreign Relations. n.d. “Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea.” Global Conflict Tracker. Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/ territorial-disputes-south-china-sea

Martin, Nik. 2024. “How South China Sea Tensions Threaten Global Trade.” DW, August 25, 2024. https://www.dw.com/en/south-china-sea-tensions-pose-threat-to-international-trade/ a-69926497

New York Times. 2025. “Taiwan’s Internet Cable Disruptions Raise Tensions with China.” The New York Times, January 7, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/07/world/asia/taiwaninternet-cable-china.html

United Nations. 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 1833 U.N.T.S. 397. Accessed April 29, 2025. https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/ unclos_e.pdf