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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This securitizing frame was used in China’s discursive bargaining strategy in February 1988 in the James Shoal, when China accused Vietnam of having already grabbed 20 islands from China and being “poised to grab more” (Chinese navy source, quoted in Garver 1992, p. 1012).
- 2.
Securitization outside of the context of heroic bargaining is, of course, possible, as the case of securitization of the climate change shows. Obviously, in these situations the structural setting that enables credible security rhetoric is different.
- 3.
- 4.
Calculations are of average annual battle deaths (as defined in Uppsala/PRIO conflict data), and all conflict data in this article are based on PRIO battle death data, version 3.0 (1946/2008). For the data, see Lacina and Gleditsch (2005).
References
Alker, H. R. J. (1996). Rediscoveries and reformulations: Humanistic methodologies for international studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
ASEAN. (2004, November 29). ASEAN protocol on enhanced dispute settlement mechanism. http://www.apfc.nccu.edu.tw/apfcfolder/ASEAN%20Protocol%20on%20Enhanced%20Dispute%20Settlement%20Mechanism,%20Vientiane,%2029%20Novem.pdf
Axelrod, R. (1985). The evolution of cooperation: Revised edition. New York: Basic Books.
Axelrod, R. (1986). An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1095–1111.
Balzacq, T. (2005). The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171–201.
Balzacq, T. (2010). Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ching, F. (1997). Resolving ASEAN’s problems. Far Eastern Economic Review, 23(1), 28.
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.
Djiwandono, J. S. (1994). Intra ASEAN territorial disputes: The Sabah claim. Indonesian Quarterly, 22(2), 49.
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.
Fitzgerald, C. P. (1963, January). The Chinese view of foreign relations. World Today, p. 12.
Gallagher, M. G. (1994). China’s illusory threat to the South China Sea. International Security, 19(1), 169–194.
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.
Guoxing, J. (1998). China vs. South China Sea security. Security Dialogue, 29(1), 101–112.
Haller-Trost, R. (1995). The territorial dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia over Pulau Ligitan and Sipadan. Durham: University of Durham.
Harsanyi, J. (1956). Approaches to bargaining problem before and after the theory of games. Econometrica, 24, 144–156.
Heinzig, D. (1976). Disputed islands in the South China Sea; Paracels – Spratlys – Pratas – Macclesfield Bank. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Keohane, R. O. (1986). Reciprocity in international relations. International Organization, 40(1), 1–27.
Keyuan, Z. (1999). Scarborough reef: A new flashpoint in Sino-Philippine relations? Boundary and Security Bulletin, 7(2), 71–81.
Kivimäki, T. (2011). East Asian relative peace and the ASEAN way. International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 11(1), 57–85.
Kivimäki, T. (2014). The long peace of East Asia. Farnham: Ashgate.
Kuusisto, R. (2009). Comic plots as conflict resolution strategy. European Journal of International Relations, 14(4), 601–626.
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.
Lo, C. (1989). China’s policy towards territorial disputes. The case of South China Sea islands. London: Routledge.
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
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC. (1980, February 18). China’s indisputable sovereignty over Xisha and Nansha Islands. Beijing Review 7.
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.
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
Nash, J. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18, 155–162.
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.
Pitsuwan, S. (2010). Foreword. In S. Tiwari (Ed.), ASEAN: Life after the charter (pp. i–x). Singapore: ISEAS.
Roberts, C. (1996). Chinese strategy and the Spratley Islands dispute. Canberra: SDSC, Australian National University.
Schelling, T. C. (1980). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Simon, S. W. (1998). Security prospects in Southeast Asia: Collaborative efforts and the ASEAN regional forum. Borneo Review, 9(1), 1–24.
Symmons, C. R. (2008). Historic waters in the law of the sea: A modern re-appraisal. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
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
Von Clausewitz, C. (1876). On war (edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wæver, O. (2010). Theorising security politically. Presented at the Center for Advanced Security Studies, CAST Seminar on Securitization, Copenhagen.
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.
Wain, B. (1988). Manila’s bungle in the South China Sea. Far Eastern Economic Review, 139(2), 14/1.
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.
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
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kivimäki, T. (2016). Legalism, Developmentalism and Securitization: The Case of Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea. In: Fels, E., Vu, TM. (eds) Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters. Global Power Shift. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26152-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26152-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26150-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26152-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)