Advertisement

Legalism, Developmentalism and Securitization: The Case of Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea

  • Timo Kivimäki
Chapter
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

There is an implicit, but untested, assumption in the theory of securitization that securitization of an issue area is, in general, a problem, as it rules the issue area outside the reach of democratic accountability, and brings in the privilege of state-centered, militaristic thinking. In this chapter, such an assumption is tested in the case of territorial disputes of the South China Sea. Furthermore the chapter will look at the way in which developmentalist discourses have changed, and how legalistic framing could change the strategic debate in East Asia with regards, to the territorial disputes in the South China Sea. While the theory of securitization has so far suggested that “security” cannot be “unspoken” the analysis of this chapter shows that alternative framing that is in practice incompatible with the security framing, could actively desecuritize issues that have been seen as security issues. Finally, the chapter will reveal the way in which the desecuritization of territorial disputes makes territorial disputes less dangerous. Empirical evidence will be shown about this in the case of developmentalist desecuritization, while the treatment of opportunities to frame territorial disputes in legal terms will be more speculative.

Keywords

Securitization Legalism Developmentalism Long peace of East Asia South China Sea 

References

  1. Alker, H. R. J. (1996). Rediscoveries and reformulations: Humanistic methodologies for international studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amer, R. (1998). Expanding ASEAN’s conflict management framework in Southeast Asia: The border dispute dimension. Asian Journal of Political Science, 6(2), 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amer, R. (2002). Claims and conflict situations. In T. Kivimäki (Ed.), War and peace in the South China Sea? (pp. 26–31). Copenhagen: NIAS Press.Google Scholar
  4. Axelrod, R. (1985). The evolution of cooperation: Revised edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Axelrod, R. (1986). An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1095–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balzacq, T. (2005). The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balzacq, T. (2010). Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  8. Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ching, F. (1997). Resolving ASEAN’s problems. Far Eastern Economic Review, 23(1), 28.Google Scholar
  10. Desker, B. (2007). Opening remarks. In The South China sea: Towards a cooperative management regime, conference report. Singapore: Singapore Maritime Security Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar
  11. Djiwandono, J. S. (1994). Intra ASEAN territorial disputes: The Sabah claim. Indonesian Quarterly, 22(2), 49.Google Scholar
  12. Ewing-Chow, M. (2010). Translating the design into a bloc: The domestic implementation of the ASEAN charter. In S. Tiwari (Ed.), ASEAN: Life after the charter (pp. 66–84). Singapore: ISEAS.Google Scholar
  13. Fitzgerald, C. P. (1963, January). The Chinese view of foreign relations. World Today, p. 12.Google Scholar
  14. Gallagher, M. G. (1994). China’s illusory threat to the South China Sea. International Security, 19(1), 169–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garver, J. W. (1992). China’s push through the South China Sea: The interaction of bureaucratic and national interests. The China Quarterly, 132(4), 1103–1005.Google Scholar
  16. Guoxing, J. (1998). China vs. South China Sea security. Security Dialogue, 29(1), 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haller-Trost, R. (1995). The territorial dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia over Pulau Ligitan and Sipadan. Durham: University of Durham.Google Scholar
  18. Harsanyi, J. (1956). Approaches to bargaining problem before and after the theory of games. Econometrica, 24, 144–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heinzig, D. (1976). Disputed islands in the South China Sea; Paracels – Spratlys – Pratas – Macclesfield Bank. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
  20. Keohane, R. O. (1986). Reciprocity in international relations. International Organization, 40(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keyuan, Z. (1999). Scarborough reef: A new flashpoint in Sino-Philippine relations? Boundary and Security Bulletin, 7(2), 71–81.Google Scholar
  22. Kivimäki, T. (2011). East Asian relative peace and the ASEAN way. International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 11(1), 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kivimäki, T. (2014). The long peace of East Asia. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  24. Kuusisto, R. (2009). Comic plots as conflict resolution strategy. European Journal of International Relations, 14(4), 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lacina, B. A., & Gleditsch, N. P. (2005). Monitoring trends in global combat: A new dataset of battle deaths. European Journal of Population, 21(2–3), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lo, C. (1989). China’s policy towards territorial disputes. The case of South China Sea islands. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Marcos, F. (1978). Presidential Decree No. 1596 June 11, 1978 Declaring certain area part of the Philippine Territory and providing for their government and administration. Accessed April 15, 2014, from http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1978/pd_1596_1978.html
  28. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC. (1980, February 18). China’s indisputable sovereignty over Xisha and Nansha Islands. Beijing Review 7.Google Scholar
  29. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (1979). White paper on the Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) Islands. Hanoi: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
  30. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (1981). The Hoang Sa and Truong Aa archipelagoes: Vietnamese territories (p. 6). Accessed May 10, 2012, from http://hoangsa.org/tailieu/Bo_ngoai_giaoVietnam81.pdf
  31. Nash, J. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nguyen, T. T. (2009). The making of the ASEAN charter in my fresh memory. In T. Koh, R. G. Manalo, & W. Woon (Eds.), The making of The ASEAN charter (pp. 95–106). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Pitsuwan, S. (2010). Foreword. In S. Tiwari (Ed.), ASEAN: Life after the charter (pp. i–x). Singapore: ISEAS.Google Scholar
  34. Roberts, C. (1996). Chinese strategy and the Spratley Islands dispute. Canberra: SDSC, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  35. Schelling, T. C. (1980). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Simon, S. W. (1998). Security prospects in Southeast Asia: Collaborative efforts and the ASEAN regional forum. Borneo Review, 9(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  37. Symmons, C. R. (2008). Historic waters in the law of the sea: A modern re-appraisal. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  38. United Nations. (1984). United Nations, UN convention on the law of the sea: Declarations made upon signature, ratification, accession or succession or anytime thereafter: Philippines. Accessed May 10, 2012, from http://verafiles.org/docs/rp-ratification.pdf
  39. Von Clausewitz, C. (1876). On war (edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wæver, O. (2010). Theorising security politically. Presented at the Center for Advanced Security Studies, CAST Seminar on Securitization, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  42. Wah Teck, J. C. (2010). ASEAN legal personality under its new charter – Its nature, meaning and Implications. In S. Tiwari (Ed.), ASEAN: Life after the charter (pp. 1–17). Singapore: ISEAS.Google Scholar
  43. Wain, B. (1988). Manila’s bungle in the South China Sea. Far Eastern Economic Review, 139(2), 14/1.Google Scholar
  44. Woon, W. (2009). The ASEAN charter dispute settlement mechanisms. In T. Koh, R. G. Manalo, & W. Woon (Eds.), The making of the ASEAN charter (pp. 69–78). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yisheng, H. (2014, September 18). A Philippine farce. People’s Daily Online. Accessed from http://english.people.com.cn/n/2014/0918/c98649-8784364.html
  46. Yong, O. K. (2009). At close quarters with the drafting of the ASEAN charter. In T. Koh, R. G. Manalo, & W. Woon (Eds.), The making of the ASEAN charter (pp. 107–116). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics, Languages and International StudiesUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations