1 - 11 - 2014 | 1:49
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Conferences & Seminars Third International Workshop, November 2011 A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas between Vietnam and China: An Alternative to the Chinese Unilateral Fishing Ban in the South China Sea?, by Hai-Dang Vu

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas between Vietnam and China: An Alternative to the Chinese Unilateral Fishing Ban in the South China Sea?, by Hai-Dang Vu

E-mail Print PDF

Since 1999, China has enacted an annual fishing ban for two or three months in the summer in the North-Western part of the South China Sea. This year (2011), the ban took place from May 16th to August the 1st and in an area between the latitude 12° North to the North and longitude 113° East to the West.[1]Any fishing vessel that goes into this area during the banis subjected to fines and its catches and gear confiscated.[2]According to Chinese news and scholars, this fishing ban is necessary to protect the sustainability of marine life in this area and prevent overfishing[3] and has produced positive results[4].However, critics, including from China, question the effectiveness of this measure. Many commercially important fishes are not breeding at the time of the fishing ban. Furthermore, after a long pause due to the ban, fishing activities would increase manifold, which causes more risk of depletion of the stocks.[5]

A more serious problem is that this regulation is enforced against Vietnamese fishermen who fish in areas also claimed by Vietnam. In response to this fishing ban, relevant Vietnamese administrations, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Vietnam Fisheries Society, haveraised their protests.[6] In particular, the Spokesperson of the Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said “China's unilateral implementation of such fishing ban in the East Sea[7] isa violation of the Vietnamese sovereignty over Hoang Sa (Paracel) archipelago, sovereign rights and jurisdiction for Vietnam's exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, violating the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), further complicating the situation in the East Sea”.[8] This ban was equally challenged by Vietnamese fishermen, who have been continuing their fishing activities offshore during this period.[9] This resulted in theirarrest, detention, beating and seize of catch and confiscation of fishing equipment by Chinese marine enforcement authorities.[10]

alt

 

In practice, the issue of conservation and management of marine living resources in a disputed areacan be resolved by the conclusion of a fishery agreement between relevant coastal countries. Examples of such agreements include the Convention between Canada and the United States in 1953 (modified by the Protocol of 1979)[11], the Agreement between Sweden and the former-Soviet Union in 1977[12] and the Agreement between Japan and Russia in 1998[13]. This is also a requirement of articles 74 (3) and 83(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which ask states, pending a delimitation agreement relating to the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, to “make every effort to enter into provisional arrangement of a practical a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement”.[14]

However, it is very difficult to have a fishery agreement that covers all the areas where there are overlapping claims between Vietnam and China in the North-Western area of the South China Sea as the disputed status of some portions of this area is already an object of disagreement. For instance, China considers that“there is nothing to negotiate” aboutthe Paracel islands[15] and Vietnam has stated that the waters belonging to its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, at least in the North-Western area of the South China Sea,are not disputed areas[16].

This paper advocates for the establishment of a bilateral network of marine protected areas (MPA) between China and Vietnam in the North-Western part of the South China Sea as a potential solution to this dilemma. The author argues that, for the sake of the preservation of marine living resources in the North-Western part of the South China Sea and the maintenance of good relationship between the two countries, instead of taking unilateral measures, China and Vietnam can work together towards establishing a bilateral MPAs network. Certainly a bilateral network of MPAs between Vietnam and China is just a solution to this dilemma but as it is argued later in the paper, taking into consideration of the existing circumstance, it could be a very effective one. 

The paper starts by giving some background information relating to protected areas, MPAs and MPAs network to point out what are the ecological, legal and political advantages of a bilateral network of MPAs, over a unilateral fishing ban. It explains then how MPAs network as a tool for marine conservation is supported by international and regional instruments in which both Vietnam and China are participants. After that, the process of establishing a regional network of MPAs is reviewed with the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion as a case study. At the end, the paper provides perspectives on how such a bilateral network of MPAs between Vietnam and China could be implemented, especially considering the existing dispute between two countries in the North-Western South China Sea.

 

1. Background Relating to MPAs Network

This section explains the background relating to the concept of MPAs network and gives an account on how a bilateral or regional network of MPAs can be established. For instance, it reviews the definitions of relevant concepts such as protected area or MPA, transboundary MPAs and network of MPAs; their different functions and points out different advantages of a bilateral MPAs network compared to a unilateral fishing ban in a common sea. It states equally the criteria, necessary steps and essential factors for the successful establishment and management of a MPAs network, in particular at the regional level.

Definitions

This sub-section definesrelevantconcepts used in this paper, such as MPAs, network of MPAs and transboundary protected areas:

The most well-known definition of MPAs is proposed by the International Union of the Conservation of the Nature. It defines a protected area in general as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”.[17]This definition is also applicable to MPAs.[18] Under this definition, fishery management areas such as fishery closures or fishery protection zone can only be qualified as MPA if their primary purpose is biodiversity conservation and not fishery management.[19] This position is criticisable as sustainable fisheries also contribute to the protection of the marine resources, in particular of commercially important species. Besides, there is not much difference between a no-take MPA in which fishery is banned and a fishery reserves or fish sanctuary[20].Under the framework of this paper, a fishery reserve established for sustainable fishery is considered as a MPA.

A network or system of MPAs is defined as “a collection of individual marine protected areas operating cooperatively and synergistically, at various spatial scales, and with a range of protection levels, in order to fulfil ecological aims more effectively and comprehensively than individual sites could alone”.[21] Not just any collection of MPAs can constitute a network but they must be located in critical habitats, containing components of a particular habitat type or portions of different kinds of important habitats and interconnected by the movement of species.[22]

A transboundary protected areas is “an area of land and/or sea that straddles one or more boundaries[23] between states, sub-national units such as provinces and regions, autonomous areas and/or areas beyond limits national sovereignty or jurisdiction, whose constituent parts are, especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, managed co-operatively through legal or other effective means”.[24] When a transboundary protected area is used not only for the purpose of protecting the environment but also the promotion of peace, it is called a park for peace or peace park.[25]

It should be noted that there seems to be confusion between network of protected areas, transboundary network of protected areas and transboundary protected area. For instance, sometimes a transboundary protected area can be used to designate a network or a group of protected areas that is established in the border region and straddlesacross the boundary or frontier[26]. Besides, a transboundary network of protected areas can be used to designate a large network of protected areas which cover more than one country (which is not only limited to their boundary or frontier). To avoid confusion, this paper uses the term of “transboundary network of MPAs” to refer to a network of protected areas that is established in the border region and straddles both sides of the boundary orfrontier, while a regional or bilateral network of protected areas refers to a network which cover the territories of more than one country but not limited to the border region.

(continuing)

 

Read full text of this paper here


[1]Nguyen Dang Thang, “Fishing Ban in the South China Sea: In quest for an alternative solution” [translated from Vietnamese: Lệnhcấmđánhcá ở BiểnĐông: Đitìmmộtgiảiphápkhác”] 2011 8:280 State and Law Review [translated from Vietnamese: TạpchíNhànướcvàPhápluật 76.

[2]“South China fishing ban” (May 17th 2011) CNC World, online: CNC World <http://www.cncworld.tv/news/v_show/15019_South_China_fishing_ban.shtml>, accessed July 26th 2011.

[3]Sun Wei, “South China Sea Fishing Ban Indisputable” (16 June 2009) The Global Times, online: The Global Times <http://china.globaltimes.cn/editor-picks/2011-04/435503.html>, accessed July 26th 2011.

[4]Zhen Sun, “South China Sea: Reducing the China-Vietnam tension” (August 8th 2011) RSIS Commentaries No.117/2011.

[5]Nguyen Dang Thang, see supra note 2and GuifangXue, China and International Fisheries Law and Policy (Leiden: MartinusNijhoff Publisher, 2005) 114.

[6]“Vietnam opposes China East Sea fishing ban” (May 14th 2011) VietnamNews, online: VietnamNews<http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/Politics-Laws/211289/VN-opposes-Chinas-East-Sea-fishing-ban-.html>, accessed July 26th 2011; “Vietnam’s fishery society opposes China’s fishing ban” (May 17th 2011) ThanhNien News, online: ThanhNien News <http://en.baomoi.com/Home/society/thanhniennews.com/Vietnams-fishery-society-opposes-Chinas-fishing-ban/145055.epi>, accessed July 26th 2011. 

[7]The Vietnamese name for the South China Sea.

[8]“Chinese unilateral fishing ban in the East Sea is a violation of Vietnamese sovereignty” (May 14th 2011) Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam Spokeperson’s Statement, online: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam <http://www.mofa.gov.vn/en/tt_baochi/pbnfn#xnxgHzi2gpGG>, accessed July 26th 2011.

[9]“Vietnam defiant on first day of Chinese fishing ban” (May 16 2011) M&C News, online: M&C <http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/>, accessed July 26th 2011; see also “Fishermen from central region keep going to the sea” [translated from Vietnamese: NgưdânmiềnTrungtiếptụcbámbiển] (May 30th 2011) VTC News, online: VTC News <http://vtc.vn/2-286819/xa-hoi/mac-trung-quoc-cam-ngu-dan-mien-trung-van-bam-bien.htm>, accessed July 26th 2011.

[10]“Chinese sailors beat up Vietnam ship captains” (July 16th 2011) Manila Times, online: Manila Times <http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/top-stories/1931-chinese-sailors-beat-up-vietnam-ship-captain>, accessed July 26th 2011; “China releases 25 Vietnamese fishermen; 12 held” (June 26th 2009) The Jakarta Post, online: The Jakarta Post <http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/26/china-releases-25-vietnamese-fishermen-12-held.html>, accessed July 26th 2011.

[11]See Convention between Canada and the United Nations for Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, Canada and the United States, March 2nd 1953, 222 U.N.T.S. 77, modified by Protocol amending the Convention between Canada and the United States of America for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, Canada and the United States, March 29th 1979, Can TS 1980 No.44.

[12]See Agreement on Mutual Relations in the Field of Fisheries(with Protocol), Sweden and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, December 22nd 1977, 1260 U.N.T.S. 220.

[13]See Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Russian Federation on some matters of cooperation in the field of fishing operations for marine living resources (provisional translation), February 21st 1998, online: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan <http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/edition01/agreement.html>, accessed July 28th 2011; for a more comprehensive analysis about the practice of concluding fishery agreements in disputed areas see Thang Nguyen-Dang, “Fisheries Cooperation in the South China Sea and the (ir)relevance of the sovereignty question” (2012) 2:1 Asian Journal of International Law 1, a draft of the paper can be found at Social Science Research Network, online: SSRN <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871314>, accessed September 22nd 2011 and Sun Pyo Kim, Maritime Delimitation and Interim Arrangements in North East Asia (Leiden: MartinusNijhoff Publishers, 2004) 177.

[14]United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3, arts 74(3) & 84(3).

[15]Greg Torrode& Minnie Chan, “China stands firm on Paracels in negotiations with Vietnam” (December 12th 2010) South China Morning Post, for details about the Paracels dispute between China and Vietnam see Stein Tønnesson, “The Paracels: The ‘Other’ South China Sea Dispute” (2002) 26:4 Asian Perspectives 145; Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty over the Paracels and Spratly Islands (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000).

[16]Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, “Press Conference on Chinese maritime surveillance vessel's cutting exploration cable of PetroViet Nam Seismic Vessel” (June 9th 2011), online: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam <http://www.mofa.gov.vn/en/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns110610100618#T4dVoWFIwqCg>, accessed August 2nd 2011.

[17]N. Dudley, Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (Gland: IUCN, 2008) 8.

[18]It is noted that before 2008, IUCN had distinct definitions for protected areas and marine protected areas.

[19]N. Dudley, see supra note19at 56; Sue Wells & Jon Day, “Application of the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories in theMarine Environment” (2004) 14:3 Parks: Protected Area Categories 28 at 34.

[20]From a terminological point of view, many names with different original meaning such as parks, reserves, sanctuaries, closed areas or refugia have been used to refer to those areas with some spatially explicit restrictions. However, “protected area” has emerged as the most commonly used term implying protection of species and communities, see Gary W.Allison, Jane Lubchenko& Mark H. Carr, “Marine Reserves Are Necessary But Not Sufficient for Marine Conservation” (1998) 8(1) Ecological Conservations S79 at S80.

[21]IUCN, Establishing Resilient Marine Protected Area Networks - Making it Happen (Washington, DC: IUCN-WCPA, 2008) 12.

[22]Ibid.

[23]The term “boundaries” used in the definition seems to include also “frontier” and “border”. For the distinction between “boundary”, “frontier” and “border” see infra note 28.

[24]Trevor Sandwith, Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-Operation, Based on the Proceedings of Workshops Held in Bormio (1998) and Gland (2000) (Gland: IUCN, 2001) 3.

[25]Ibid.note 26

[26]It should be noted that while both boundary and frontier mean an area separating the territories of two countries, a boundary refers to a line meanwhile frontier is used to designate a zone without a delimitation line and border designates the outermost parts of a country, bounded in one side by the national boundary. For the meaning of different terminology such as “boundary”, “border” and “frontier” see Nguyen-Dang Thang, supra note 14; Victor Prescott &Gilian D. Triggs, International Frontiers and Boundaries: Law, Politics and Geography (Leiden: MartinusNijhoff Publishers, 2008), 11 – 12; Douglas M. Johnston, The Theory and History of Ocean Boundary-Making (Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988) 3 and A.O. Cukwurah, The Settlement of Boundary Disputes in International Law (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), 11 – 12. 


Newer news items:
Older news items:

Can a limited purpose maritime and air defence identification zone be established over the South China Sea?, by Mary George

Can a limited purpose maritime and air defence identification zone  be established over the South China Sea?, by Mary George

To stimulate South China Sea regional security cooperation in the control of piratical attacks against ships, this paper proposes the establishment of a limited purpose maritime and air defence identification zone over the South China Sea.

Read more...

Recent Developments in the Philippine Baselines Law, by Raul C. Pangalangan

Recent Developments in the Philippine Baselines Law, by Raul C. Pangalangan

The Philippines recently passed a 2009 Baselines Law that, it was hoped, would finally confront its long-standing dilemma on whether to abandon its 1898 “treaty lines” altogether and adopt the modern rules on the Law of the Sea. That hope did not come to pass.

Read more...

International Law in the South China Sea: Does it drive or help resolve conflict?, by Stein Tønnesson

International Law in the South China Sea: Does it drive or help resolve conflict?, by Stein Tønnesson

Abstract

The interplay of power and law in the South China Sea is not well understood. To analyze the disputes over navigation rights, sovereignty to islands, and delimitation of maritime zones we need to grasp how states define and defend their geopolitical interests as well as the ways in which international law influences their claims and conflict behaviour. This paper starts with the huge difference in interpretations made by geopolitically oriented political scientists and more normatively or legally oriented scholars. Then the paper asks how developments in international law have affected the conflicts in the South China Sea historically. It establishes parallel histories of alternation between periods of conflict and détente and of legal developments, both in customary and treaty-based international law. The main emphasis is on the law of the sea. The paper concludes by establishing causal linkages between the two histories, while seeking to ascertain in what ways the law as such has influenced conflict behaviour. Has it exacerbated disputes by encouraging conflictual claims? Or has it established rules and procedures that help manage or resolve conflicts? The paper is written on the assumption that the answers we give to these questions may influence the way we see the prospects of future peace in the South China Sea.

Read more...

Where’s the Stake? U.S. Interests in the South China Sea, by Jonathan G. Odom

Where’s the Stake? U.S. Interests in the South China Sea, by  Jonathan G. Odom

Introduction

Much of the legal discussion about the ongoing situation in the South China Sea focuses upon the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)[1], a convention that was concluded in 1982.  During that early 1980's timeframe, there was an iconic television commercial[2] in the United States promoting the fast-food chain of restaurants known as Wendy’s.  The commercial showed three little old ladies standing at a cash register of a fictional restaurant that was competing with Wendy’s.  Behind the ladies was a sign on the wall that read, "Home of the Big Bun."  On the countertop was a large hamburger bun with an extremely small meat patty.  Each of the old ladies stared intensely at the bun.  Two of the ladies were admiring the bun.  The middle lady said, "It certainly is a big bun. It's a very big bun. It's a big fluffy bun. It's a very big fluffy bun."  The lady on the right, however, was wholly unimpressed with the large bun.  Over and over, she kept yelling "Where's the beef?" across the counter to anyone who might listen. At the conclusion of the television commercial, as the screen faded to black, the viewer could hear the third lady doubtfully telling her colleagues, "I don't think there is anybody back there."

Read more...

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas between Vietnam and China: An Alternative to the Chinese Unilateral Fishing Ban in the South China Sea?, by Hai-Dang Vu

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas between Vietnam and China: An Alternative to the Chinese Unilateral Fishing Ban in the South China Sea?, by Hai-Dang Vu

Since 1999, China has enacted an annual fishing ban for two or three months in the summer in the North-Western part of the South China Sea. This year (2011), the ban took place from May 16th to August the 1st and in an area between the latitude 12° North to the North and longitude 113° East to the West.[1]Any fishing vessel that goes into this area during the banis subjected to fines and its catches and gear confiscated.[2]According to Chinese news and scholars, this fishing ban is necessary to protect the sustainability of marine life in this area and prevent overfishing[3] and has produced positive results[4].However, critics, including from China, question the effectiveness of this measure. Many commercially important fishes are not breeding at the time of the fishing ban. Furthermore, after a long pause due to the ban, fishing activities would increase manifold, which causes more risk of depletion of the stocks.[5]

Read more...

Regional Cooperation in the South China Sea, by Jon M. Van Dyke

Regional Cooperation in the South China Sea, by Jon M. Van Dyke

The Duty to Cooperate in Semi-Enclosed Seas

            The South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea governed by Part IX of the Law of the Sea Convention,[1] which says in Article 123 that countries bordering such seas “should co-operate with each other in the exercise of their rights and the performance of their duties under this Convention”  More specifically, they are instructed to “endeavor, directly or through an appropriate regional organization (a) to co-ordinate the management, conservation, exploration, and exploitation of the living resources of the sea” and also to co-ordinate their activities “with respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment.”  The countries bordering on the South China Sea have failed to create an effective regional organization, and their cooperation “directly” has been generally unsuccessful as well.  The Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) has been mostly dysfunctional and the Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA)has been modest in its accomplishments.  No effective organization to manage the shared fisheries has been established. 

Read more...

Resolution to Fishery Disputes in the South China Sea through Regional Cooperation and Management, by Kuan-Hsiung Wang

Resolution to Fishery Disputes in the South China Sea through Regional Cooperation and Management, by Kuan-Hsiung Wang

The disputes in the South China Sea could be categorized into two parts: one is on the sovereignty of those island features, and the other is the maritime zones that could be claimed. It is understandable that the best way to solve the disputes might be delimiting boundaries so that the areas of sovereignty and jurisdiction could be decided. However, such situation is not always possible. It is mainly because negotiation and adoption of a maritime boundary between the related States always focused on political considerations and there are no well-established laws for making boundaries. Although it is recognized that “equitable solution” is one of the most important principles in making boundary. However, there is no definite elements which have been decided, in spite of geographical and geological factors, coastal length, traditional fishing activities, relative impact on the livelihood and economic dependency are the considerations recognized in different cases.

Read more...

The South China Sea: Cooperation for Regional Security and Development, by Hasjim Djalal

The South China Sea: Cooperation for Regional Security and Development, by Hasjim Djalal

The efforts to develop cooperation for regional security and development, so far, has involved some formal approach of ASEAN and some informal approach by academic institutions and some informal unofficial approach by some South China Sea officials in their personal capacities. The formal approach has resulted in the Declaration of Conduct by the Foreign Minister of ASEAN and China in 2002 as well as by China and the Philippines, the Philippines and the Vietnam in formulating some confidence building measures or Code of Conduct between them. The informal approach has been initiated by Indonesia through the Workshop Process on Managing Potential Conflicts in the South China Sea since 1990. It should be noted however, that while the formal approach excludes Chinese Taipei in the process, but include Myanmar as an ASEAN Member although it is not located in the South China Sea, the second informal approach, however, includes Chinese Taipei as an “entity” in the South China Sea issues although no states around the South China Sea area has any diplomatic relations with the Chinese Taipei.

Read more...

The Internationalization of the South China Sea: Conflict prevention and management, by Leszek Buszynski

The Internationalization of the South China Sea: Conflict prevention and management, by Leszek Buszynski

Introduction

The South China Sea issue began as a territorial dispute over the sovereignty of the islands and sea territory involving China and five ASEAN countries, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia.  Both China and Vietnam claim the entire area and the islands within while the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei have laid claims to contiguous areas based on EEZs and continental shelves and first discovery.  Had it been just a territorial issue it could have been resolved in some way as a product of Chinese efforts to reach out to ASEAN and to forge stronger ties with the region.  Later the issue involved access to the oil and gas reserves of the sea which became critical as global demand for energy rose and claimants devised plans to exploit the hydrocarbon reserves of the area.  Disputes erupted over the competing claims, particularly between China and Vietnam, which at times threatened to escalate.  Claims to energy resources need not result in conflict, however, and can be managed on the basis of joint or multilateral development for which there are various precedents and models though none quiet as complicated as would be required for the South China Sea. 

Read more...

Straight baselines around insular formations not constituting an archipelagic state, by Erik Franckx & Marco Benatar

Straight baselines around insular formations not constituting an archipelagic state, by Erik Franckx & Marco Benatar

I. Introduction

The South China Sea (SCS) dispute has proven to be a hotbed for a variety of juridical quarrels, ranging from the extent of maritime zones[1], to territorial insular claims[2] and navigational rights.[3] One of the outlying issues that warrants closer examination concerns the baselines to be drawn around mid-ocean SCS islands.[4] As a starting position, one would surmise the applicability of the regime of normal baselines in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[5]

Read more...

UNCLOS and maritime security in the South China Sea, by Nguyen Thi Lan Anh

UNCLOS and maritime security in the South China Sea, by Nguyen Thi Lan Anh

Maritime security is a relatively new concept and there are several approaches on its definition within the overall concept of security in international relations. Maritime security is developed to emphasize the importance of maintaining good order at sea in terms of the use and management of the marine resources for human development. In a hotspot like the South China Sea, where sovereignty disputes and overlapping maritime claims are still escalating and complicated, the maintenance of maritime security is a vital issue, covering all aspects of traditional and non-traditional security. With regard to traditional security, the current tension and the modernization of army, particularly navy forces indicated that the parties had prepared for the use of force and armed conflict at regional level may occur. In non-traditional aspects, maritime and aviation safety, marine environmental protection, marine biodiversity and the maintenance of good livelihood for the people are among the fields that currently being seriously threaten. 

Read more...

Exclusive Economic Zone in Major Media and Academic Journals in 2011: South China Sea and Other Seas, by Yearn Hong Choi

Exclusive Economic Zone in Major Media and Academic Journals in 2011: South China Sea and Other Seas, by Yearn Hong Choi

Introduction

Every coastal nation attempts to expand its sea territory by extending or expanding exclusive economic zone to the maximum possible. The EEZ was a new concept and a specific legal regime in the Law of the Sea Convention, building on the “exclusive fishing zones” and “fishing conservation zones” already in existence. The EEZ regime in the Convention was primarily aimed at living resources of the waters superjacent to the seabed. Although Article 56 (1) (a) stipulates that in the EEZ, “the coastal State has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil,” Article 56 (3) affirms that the rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed and subsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI.” The EEZ is and must be an environmental conservation concept: However, it is  far from such a novel concept in reality. It is considered or interpreted as the coastal State’s privilege to claim its sovereign sea. Rights without obligations or duties have been claimed, rather blindly. This is something pathetically wrong or very ridiculous. Under the circumstances, 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone has been rather abused.

Read more...

Growing tension in South China Sea – Causes and Cures, by S. D. Pradhan

Growing tension in South China Sea – Causes and Cures, by S. D. Pradhan

The recent escalation in tension in South China Sea has indicated the need for objectively looking at the causes of dispute and the recent developments both negative and positive with a view to suggest measures todiffuse the situation, which according to some security experts has the potentials to escalate into an armed conflict and to help the involved nations to find a permanent solution.

Read more...

Abstract of The Risk of Applying Realpolitik in Resolving the South China Sea Dispute: Possible Implications on Regional Security. by Renato De Castro

Abstract of The Risk of Applying Realpolitik in Resolving the South China Sea Dispute: Possible Implications on Regional Security. by Renato De Castro

Located in the heart of Southeast Asia, the South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea surrounded by China and several smaller and weaker Southeast Asian powers such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei.  Since the mid-1970s, these littoral states have been locked in a chronic competition as each one seek to extend its sovereignty and jurisdictional claims over more than a hundred islets, reefs, and rocks and their surrounding waters.  The biggest among the claimant states, China has shown propensity to use coercive diplomacy and even actual force to pursue its territorial claims.   In 1974, its forces drove the South Vietnamese from the Paracel Islands north of the Spratlys. Then in 1988, Chinese forces dislodged Vietnamese forces from Johnson Reef, after they sunk three Vietnamese trawlers near Fiery Cross Reef.  China’s promulgation of a territorial law claiming a large portion of the South China Sea in 1992, and Manila’s discovery of Chinese military structures on Mischief Reef in 1995 triggered a serious diplomatic row between the Philippines and China in the mid-1990s.

Read more...

South China Sea: China’s Rise and Implications for Security Cooperation, by Koichi Sato

South China Sea: China’s Rise and Implications for Security Cooperation, by Koichi Sato

In March 2010[1], Chinese diplomats told senior Obama administration officials that China (People’s Republic of China: PRC) would not tolerate any interference in the South China Sea, now part of China’s “core interest” of sovereignty. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) navy and the Chinese maritime security agencies have begun to deploy their battleships and patrol boats in the South China Sea. Tensions between China and its Southeast Asian neighbors are on the rise. The United States, Japan, and Australia also show concern for the security of Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) in the South China Sea. It is also said that the PLA navy has a plan to develop aircraft carriers. This paper analyzes these maritime challenges and explores implications for the security cooperation between China and its neighboring countries including Japan and the United States.

Read more...
More:

Language

South China Sea Studies

Joomla Slide Menu by DART Creations

Search

Special Publication

 

Login Form

Top Photo Galleries

Web Links

VIETNAM MOFA SPOKESPERSON

 

NATIONAL BOUNDARIES