Skip to main content

Taiwan, the South China Sea Dispute, and the 2016 Arbitration Decision

Abstract

The South China Sea (SCS) has been an area of contention among strong powers and weak states since the release of the 1968 UN geological survey indicating this region’s rich resource potential. The disputes among China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines have made the US concerned about regional peace and stability, though the US has no territorial claims there. At the center of this drama has been China’s assertive pose and the counter-moves of the US. Taiwan has also played a crucial role; nevertheless, most studies pay little attention to the crucial role it has played in the SCS disputes. This study explores what role Taiwan has played in the game of the SCS maritime dispute. After a brief introduction to the SCS dispute, this study examines Taiwan’s consideration and explores its policy variation between the former Ma Ying-jeou government and the new Tsai Ing-wen government after May 2016.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See [54] for details.

  2. 2.

    Please see [2: 171–185] for further elaboration.

  3. 3.

    For examples, please see [75].

References

  1. 1.

    Tordesillas, Ellen. 2013. Will China withdraw form UNCLOS if UN court decides in favor of PH? The Filipino Express, Dec. 16. <www.filipinoexpress.com/ellen-tordesillas/869-would-china-withdraw-from-unclos-if-un-court-decides-in-favor-of-ph>. Accessed May 24, 2016.

  2. 2.

    UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. 1969. Geographic structure and some water characteristics of the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. Technical Bulletin 2: 3–43. The report was based on a survey conducted by K. O. Emery and others in 1968.

  3. 3.

    US Energy Information Agency. 2013. South China Sea. Feb. 7 (Notes). <www.eia.gov/beta/international/regions-topics.cfm?RegionTopicID=SCS>. Accessed May 24, 2016.

  4. 4.

    Houssain, Kamrul. 2013. The UNCLOS and the US-China hegemonic competition over the South China Sea. Journal of East Asia and International Law 6 (1): 107–133.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wang, Gungwu. 2007. The nanhai trade: a study of the early history of Chinese trade in the South China Sea. In In Southeast Asia-China Interactions, selected and introduced by Geoff Wade with a forward by Wang Gungwu, reprint of articles from the Journal of The Malaysian Branch, Royal Asiatic Society. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: The Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hou, Kuang-Hao. 2014. The meaning of the ocean of the state in contemporary Taiwan since 1949: understanding state perception of the ocean through a historical approach. Australian Approach of Maritime and Ocean Affairs 6 (4): 191–206.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Jiang Xun and Zhang Weiran, 2014. Gu Ditu Zhengming Diaodao nanhai zhuquan (ancient maps prove sovereign rights over the Diaoyu Islands and South China Sea), Yazhou Zhoukan (Asian weekly), 28(33), August 24.

  8. 8.

    Li Guoqiang, 2011. Zhongguo Nanhai Jiangyu Xingcheng de Lishi Kaocha” (A historical survey of the formation of China’s maritime boundary of the Southern Sea), Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Bao (Chinese Social Sciences Today), no. 199, posted on June 23. <sspress.cass.cn/news/22486.htm>. Accessed Nov. 20, 2016.

  9. 9.

    Zhou, Yu. 2011. Shui Wei Zhongguo Huachu Nanhai Jiouduan Xian? (Who Drew the South Sea’s 9-dashed Line for China? Fenghuang zhoukan (Phoenix Weekly). August 30. <news.ifeng.com/shendu/fhzk/detail_2011_08/30/8790931_0.shtml?_from_ralated>. Accessed Nov. 17, 2016.

  10. 10.

    Zou, Keyuan. 2005. Law of the sea in East Asia: issues and prospects. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    He, Libo. 2012. 1946 Nian Shoufu Nanhai Zhudao yu ‘Jiouduan Xian’ de Youlai” (The recovering of the South China Sea Islands in 1946 and the history of “9-dashed” line), Renmin Zhengxie Bao (People’s Political Consultation Newspaper), May11. <news.ifeng.com/history/zhongguoxiandaishi/special/nhzz/detail_2012_05/11/14469996_0.shtml>. Accessed Nov. 1, 2016.

  12. 12.

    Chu, Hao. 2012. Zhuanjia xiangjie nanhai wenti, zhongguo you chongfen zhuquan yiju (Experts explain the South Sea question. China has solid evidence for sovereignty. May 11. <news.ifeng.com/opinion/gundong/detail_2012_05/11/14468240_0.shtml?_from_ralated>.

  13. 13.

    Benson, Jeff W. 2013. South China Sea: A history of armed conflict. USNI News, US Naval Institute, June 20, 2012 and updated on Feb. 5, 2013. <news.usni.org/2012/06/20/south-china-sea-history-armed-conflict>.

  14. 14.

    Dzurek, Daniel J. 1995. China occupies mischief reef in latest Spratly gambit. April: IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, 65–71. https://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/download/?id=58.

  15. 15.

    Zou, Keyuan. 1999. Scarborough reef: a new flashpoint in Sino-Philippine relations? IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin 7 (2): 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Yahuda, Michael. 2011. The international politics of the Asia-Pacific. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Valencia, Mark J. 1995. China and the South China Sea disputes: Conflicting claims and potential solutions in the South China Sea. Adelphi Paper No. 298.

  18. 18.

    Nansha chundao zaixian (South China Sea islands online). <www.nansha.org.cn/islandsdatabase/1/01.html>. Accessed June 1, 2016.

  19. 19.

    Colson, David, and Robert Smith, eds. 2005. International maritime boundaries. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Pub., 2005, co-publication with the American Society of International Law, Vol. 5.

  20. 20.

    Smith, Robert W. 2010. Maritime delimitation in the South China Sea: Potentiality and challenges. Ocean Development and International Law 41 (3): 214–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Amer, Ramses. 2015. The South China Sea: achievements and challenges to dispute management. Asian Survey 55 (3): 618–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Yu, Mincai. 2014. China’s responses to the compulsory arbitration on the South China Sea dispute: legal effects and policy options. Ocean Development and International Law 45 (1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Morgenthau, Hans J. 1940. Positivism, functionalism, and international law. American Journal of International Law 34 (2): 260–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Crawford, James. 2008. 2008. Brownlie’s principles of public international law. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hahn, Michael. 2008. Options for dispute settlement. In Peace in Northeast Asia: resolving Japan’s territorial and maritime disputes with China, Korea and the Russian Federation, ed. Thomas J. Schoenbaum, 65–82. Northampton: Edward Elgar Pub.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Dzurek, Daniel J. 1996. The Spratly Islands dispute: Who’s on first. Maritime Briefing 2(1). Edited by Clive Schofield. International Boundaries Research Unit, Department of Geography, Univeristy of Durham, UK.

  27. 27.

    Hu, Nien-Tsu Alfred. 2010. South China Sea: troubled waters or a sea of opportunity? Ocean Development and International Law 41 (3): 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Shi, Xiujuan. 2016. Sheqi ‘U Xing Xian’ ‘Guyou’ Jiangyu, Xing Zhengfu Fangxiu Nanhai Zhuquan Lunshu, Pieqing yu Zhongguo Lianshou” (Abandon “U-Shape line,” “inherent” territory, new government reconstructed the discourse of South China Sea sovereignty, ensure its non-cooperation with China), Fengchuan Mei (Storm Media), July 10. <www.storm.mg/article/140113>. Accessed July 10, 2016.

  29. 29.

    Peng, Guangqian. 2010. China’s maritime rights and interests. In Military Activities in the EEZ, ed. Peter Dutton. Newport, RI: Naval War College. Center for Naval Warfare Studies, China Maritime Study No. 7.

  30. 30.

    Lee, Lai-To. 1999. China and the South China Sea dialogues. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Buzan, Barry. 2007. People, states and fear: an agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era. Wivenhoe Park: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Balzacq, Thierry. 2005. The three faces of securitization: political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations 11 (2): 171–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Balzacq, Thierry. 2010. Constructivism and securitization studies. In The Routledge handbooks of security studies, ed. M.D. Cavelty and V. Maure, 56–72. Abington: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Emmers, Ralf. 2016. Securitization. In Contemporary security studies, ed. Alan Collins, 168–181. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    McSweeney, Bill. 1996. Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen school. Review of International Studies 22 (1): 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bialasicwicz, Luiza, David Campbell, Stuart Elden, Stephen Graham, Alex Jeffrey, and Alison J. Williams. 2007. Performing security: the imaginative geographies of current US strategy. Political Geography 26 (4): 405–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Campbell, David. 1992. Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Toft, Monica Duffy. 2003. The geography of ethnic violence: identity, interests, and the indivisibility of territory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Williams, Michael C. 2003. Words, images, enemies: securitization and international politics. International Studies Quarterly 47 (4): 511–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Liao, Huei-chun, and Sih Ting Jhou. 2013. Taiwan’s severe energy security challenges. Taiwan-US Quarterly Analysis, Brookings, Sept. 12. <www.brookings.edu/opinions/taiwans-severe-energy-security-challenges/>. Accessed September 28, 2016.

  41. 41.

    Yumin Shenji Kongshou Yingxiang (Fishermen’s Livelihood Might be Impacted). 2016. CNA news, Taipei. July 13. <www.cna.com.tw/news/afe/201607130351-1.aspx>. Accessed Nov. 11, 2016.

  42. 42.

    Xi, Zhigang. 2014. Liangan Shiyou Hezuo Taiqian Muhou (Cross-Strait oil cooperation on the front of or behind the curtain). Fenghuang Zhoukan (Phoenix Weekly) no. 461, Nov. 13, <http://www.ifengweekly.com/detil.php?id=731>. Accesses Nov.4, 2016.

  43. 43.

    US Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense. 2016. Annual report to Congress: Military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China 2015. May. RefID: D-117FA69.

  44. 44.

    Beech, Hannah. 2016. Inside the international contest over the most important waterway in the world. Time. June, 6.

  45. 45.

    Watkins, Derek. 2016. China has been building in the South China Sea. New York Times (Feb. 29) www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea-2016.html>. Accessed June 21, 2016.

  46. 46.

    Wingfield-Hayes, Rupert. 2014. China’s island factory. BBC News Magazine. September 9. <www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8701/index.html>. Accessed June 1, 2015.

  47. 47.

    Hong, Nang. 2012. UNCLOS and ocean dispute settlement: law and politics in the South China Sea. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Mattes, Michaela. 2012. Reputation, symmetry, and alliance design. International Organization 66 (4): 679–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Bader, Jeffrey A. 2014. The US and China’s nine-dash line: Ending the ambiguity. Brookings Institution, Feb. 6. <www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/02/06-us-china-nine-dash-line-bader >. Accessed June 24, 2016.

  50. 50.

    Stanton’s advice to Taiwan on South China Sea not official: AIT. 2014. Taiwan News, Sept. 15. <www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=2572279>. Accessed Oct. 15, 2016.

  51. 51.

    Beckman, Robert. 2013. The UN convention on the law of the sea and the maritime disputes in the South China Sea. American Journal of International Law. 107 (1): 142–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Fravel, M. Taylor. 2011. China’s strategy in the South China Sea. Contemporary Southeast Asia 33 (3): 292–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Office of Ocean Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, US Department of State. 2005. Taiwan’s maritime claims. Limits in the Seas, no. 127. <https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/234936.pdf>.

  54. 54.

    Wang, Kuan-hsiung. 2010. The ROC’s maritime claims and practices with special reference to the South China Sea. Ocean Development and International Law 41 (3): 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Li, Shunde. 2015. Xuanshi Zhuquan, Wo Wancheng Shouzhang Nanhai Ditu”. Lianhe Bao (United Daily), Dec. 6. <http://news.ifeng.com/a/20151207/46551186_0.shtml>.

  56. 56.

    Song, Yann-huei. 2015. Taiwan’s response to the Philippines-PRC South China Sea arbitration. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, July 15. <amti.csis.org/taiwans-response-to-the-philippines-prc-south-china-sea-arbitration/>. Accessed June 27, 2016.

  57. 57.

    Lin, Cheng-yi. 2016. Obama’s South China Sea policy: China’s response and implications for Taiwan (in Chinese). Soochow Journal of Political Science 34 (1): 1–80.

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Wu, J.R. 2016. US slams Taiwan President’s planned visit to contested South China Sea Island. Reuters. January 27. <www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-southchinasea-idUSKCN0V502V>. Accessed June 27, 2016.

  59. 59.

    Yeh, Joseph. 2015. Ma Taiping visit could cause tension: former US official. The China Post Dec. 18. <www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/intl-community/2015/12/18/453813/Ma-Taiping.htm>. Accessed June 27, 2016.

  60. 60.

    Helmersen, Sondre Torp. 2013. Evolutive treaty interpretation: legality, semantics and distinctions. European Journal of Legal Studies 6 (1): 127–148.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    D’Amato, Anthony. 1992. International law, intertemporal problems. In Encyclopedia of public international law 1992: 1234–1236.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Kotzur, Markus. 2008. Intertemporal law. The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. April. <opil.ouplaw.com>.

  63. 63.

    Higgins, Rosalyn. 1996. Some observations of the inter-temporal rule in international law. In Theory of international law at the threshold of the 21st century, ed. Jerzy Makarczyk, 173–181. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Lu Shaojiang Yu Liangan Lianshou Hu Dongnanhai (Mainland major general called for cross-strait cooperation in the protection of the East and South China Sea). 2014. China Times (Taipei), July 26. <www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20140726000898-260301>. Accessed May 1, 2016.

  65. 65.

    Holmes, James R. 2014. Strategic features of the South China Sea. Naval War College Review 67 (2): 30–51.

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Jie, Zhong. 2016. Cai Yingwen de nanhai Keti (Tsai ing-wen’s main tasks in the South China Sea. Fengchuan Mei (Storm Media). April 11. <www.storm.mg/article/100205>. Accessed June 30, 2016.

  67. 67.

    Taiwan shiyou gongsi tou liouyi wang taiping dao zhaoyou (Taiwan’s CPC Corporation invested 600 million NT Dollars for oil exploration in the Taiping Island. 2013. Hong Kong China News Agency. Oct. 25. <www.hkcna.hk/content/2013/1025/221808.shtml>. Accessed June 30, 2016.

  68. 68.

    Ching, Frank. 2014. Taiwan can play peacemaker in South China Sea disputes. South China Morning Post. May 20. <www.scmp.com/comment/article/1516102/taiwan-can-play-peacemaker-south-china-sea-disputes>.

  69. 69.

    Friedrich, Kratochwil, Paul Rohrlich, and Harpreet Mahajan. 1985. Peace and disputed sovereignty: reflections on conflict over territory. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Bederman, David J., and Chiméne I. Keitner. 2016. International law frameworks. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Biersteker, Thomas J. 2002. State, sovereignty and territory (chapter 8). In Handbook of international relations, ed. Walter Carisnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 157–176. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Camilleri, Joseph A. 1990. Rethinking sovereignty in a shrinking, fragmented world. In Contending sovereignties—redefining political community, ed. R.B.J. Walker and Saul H. Mendlovitz, 3–44. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Ruggie, John Gerald. 1983. Continuity and transformation in the world polity: toward a neorealist synthesis (a review of Theory of international Politics by Kenneth N. Waltz). World Politics 35 (2): 261–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Bull, Hedley. 1977. The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Lee, Wei-chin. 2013. Sailing the ocean blue: Taiwan as a fishing entity in regional fisheries management organizations. Conference Proceedings of the Conference on “Inter-flow and Trans-border: Ocean, Environment, and Cultural Landscape of Taiwan,” at the University of California, Santa Barbara, organized by the Center for Taiwan Studies, UCSB, Dec. 6–7.

  76. 76.

    Franck, Thomas F.M. 1990. The power of legitimacy among nations. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Hu, Nien-Tsu Alfred. 2010. Semi-enclosed troubled waters: a new thinking on the application of the 1982 UNCLOS article 123 to the South China Sea. Ocean Development and International Law 41 (3): 281–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Chen, Lih-Torng. 2016. “Prospects and Perspectives”, a newsletter. Published by the Prospect Foundation, Taipei, No. 5, February. <http://www.pf.org.tw/Pages/ResearchManage/ResearchDetail.aspx?id=26332>.

  79. 79.

    Li, Chien-pin. 2016. The South China Sea peace initiative in a transitional security environment. American Journal of Chinese Studies 23 (1): 119–133.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Taiwan. 2016. South China Sea Peace initiative. <www.mofa.gov.tw/en/theme.aspx?n=E5A0D5E2432C234D&s=83376F561B7165E6&sms=BCDE19B435833080>. Accessed Nov. 11, 2016.

  81. 81.

    Guillaume, Gilbert. 2011. The use of precedent by international judges and arbitrators. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 2 (1): 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Xu, Yi-chen. 2016. Ma Ying-jeou: Wo Hai Meidao Taipingdao, Jioubeima Pohuai Taimei Guanxi (Ma Ying-jeou: I have been scolded for destructing Taiwan-US relations before my arrival at the Taiping Island). United Daily, Taipei, July 14.

  83. 83.

    Huang, Guan-qin. 2016. Zhe Yihui MaYing-jeou Shi Duide (this time, Ma Ying-jeou is right). Meilidao Dianzibao (Formosa Digital Newspaper), July 14. <www.my-formosa.com/DOC_103413.htm>. Accessed Nov. 16, 2016.

  84. 84.

    Li, Bao. 2014. Taiwan Qian Gaoguan Cheng Yingfangqi Nanzhongguohai Zhuzhang (Taiwan’s former high-level officials stated to abandon South China Sea claim). Voice of America, Sept. 14. <www.voachinese.com/a/taiwan-20140913/2449107.html>. Accessed Nov. 16, 2016.

  85. 85.

    Ho, Szu-yin, and I-chou Liu. 2003. The Taiwanese/Chinese identity of the Taiwan people in the 1990s. In Sayonara to the lee Teng-hui era, politics in Taiwan, 1988–2000, ed. Wei-chin Lee and T.Y. Wang, 149–184. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Election Study Center, National Chengchi University. 2016. Taiwanese/Chinese identification trend distribution in Taiwan (1992/06~2015/06). <esc.nccu.edu.tw/app/news.php?Sn=166#>. Accessed Nov. 15, 2016.

  87. 87.

    Taiwan National Security Survey, the Program of Asian Security, Duke University. <dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43428880/index.html>.

  88. 88.

    Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan). 2016. Zhongtong Jieshou Riben Yomiuri Shimbun Zhuanfang (the president received an interview by Yomiuri Shimbun). Oct. 7. <www.president.gov.tw/Default.aspx?tabid=131&rmid=514&itemid=38125>. Accessed Nov. 10, 2016.

  89. 89.

    Rigger, Shelley. 2011. Why Taiwan matters. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Chiang, Huang-chih. 2012. Island claims need careful thought. Taipei Times, Taipei, May 26. <http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2012/05/26/2003533739>.

  91. 91.

    Gao, Shengti and Wang Guanxiong, 2015. Fangqi Nanhai,Minjindang Fengle Ma? (Abandon the South China Sea? Is the DPP crazy? Zhongguo Shibao (China Times), Taipei, May 22. <www.chinatimes.com/cn/newspapers/20150522001650-260109>.

  92. 92.

    Lin, Feng. 2016. Taiwan Nanzhongguohai Zhongcaian Biaotai huo biti ‘Guyou Jiangyu’ (Taiwan avoided the expression or avoid “inherent territory” in the South China Sea arbitration case), Voice of America, July 10. <www.voachinese.com/a/news-tsai-ing-wen-administration-is-due-to-announce-taiwan-scs-position-20160710/3411260.html>.

  93. 93.

    Lin, Heming and Huang Guoliang. 2016. Cai Dingdiao, Nanhai Zhuquang Buti ‘U Xing Xian’ (Tsai decided not to mention the U-shape line). July 15. <money.udn.com/money/story/7307/1830115>. Accessed Nov. 18, 2016.

  94. 94.

    Ayako, Mie. 2016. Japan steps up rhetoric over Okinotorishima in wake of Hague ruling. Japan Times. July 15. <www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/15/>. Accessed Nov. 2, 2016.

  95. 95.

    Kotani, Tetsuo. 2016. Taipei’s risking agreement with Beijing on Okinotorishima. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. May 10. <amti.csis.org>. Accessed Oct. 10, 2016.

  96. 96.

    Riben Cengwei Bushi Jiange Wentihua, Biaoshi Zhichi Taiwan Baozhu Lianheguo Xiwei (Japan supported Taiwan to keep the UN membership in order to gain Taiwan’s support to prevent the Diaoyu/Snekaku Islands from becoming a problem). 2014. China Digital Times, July 23. <chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/2014/07…>. Accessed June 24, 2016.

  97. 97.

    Taiwan, Japan meet for series of maritime talks. 2016, Taipei Times¸ Nov. 1. <www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2016/11/01/2003658330>. Accessed Nov. 16, 2016.

  98. 98.

    Taiwan does not accept South China Sea ruling: Presidential Office. 2016. Focus Taiwan July 12. <focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201607120024.aspx>. Accessed Nov. 21, 2016.

  99. 99.

    TVBS Poll Center, 2016. Nanhai zhongcai panjue zhengyi mindiao (Opinion survey of the controversial South China Sea arbitration verdict), July 14–18. <other. tvbs.com.tw/export/sites/tvbs/file/other/poll.../0507141.pdf >.

  100. 100.

    Taiwan Thinktank, 2016. Taiwan Zhiku Qiyue Mindiao Jizhehui, Huihou Xinwengao (Press conference about Taiwan Thinktank survey in July, post-conference press report), July 30. <www.taiwanthinktank.org/chinese/page/5/61/3149/0>. Accessed Nov. 201, 2016.

  101. 101.

    Zhou, Yuxiang. 2016. Nanhai Zhongcai Mindiao, Jin Qicheng Minzhong Juede Beichumai (Public opinion on the South China Sea arbitration, close to 70% people felt betrayed). China Times, Taipei. July 26. <www.chinatimes.com/cn/realtimenews/20160726003059-260407>. Accessed Nov. 20, 2016.

  102. 102.

    Snyder, Jack, and Karen Ballentine. 1996. Nationalism and the marketplace of ideas. International Security 21 (2): 5–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei-chin Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, Wc. Taiwan, the South China Sea Dispute, and the 2016 Arbitration Decision. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 22, 229–250 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-017-9470-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ma Ying-jeou
  • Tsai ing-Wen
  • South China Sea
  • Arbitral tribunal
  • Taiwan
  • China
  • 11-dash line
  • 9-dash line
  • Taiping Island