Conclusion
Abstract
International arbitration does not constitute a likely scenario to resolve the overlapping claims in the Sea of Japan and East and South China Seas. Rather than a legalistic approach, some form of joint exploration and exploitation of resources has instead often been envisioned as the most feasible way forward. Temporary fisheries agreements have been negotiated to regulate fishery matters in the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea. Much less has been achieved on the joint exploration of hydrocarbon resources. Rising nationalism and regional competition are making cooperative schemes much harder to negotiate and implement. This makes the joint development of hydrocarbon resources an unlikely scenario in the years to come.
Keywords
International arbitration joint development resource management nationalismPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 1.This can be contrasted to other territorial disputes in Southeast Asia. For example, in November 2007 Singapore and Malaysia submitted their sovereignty claims over the island of Petra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to the ICJ for international arbitration. Ending a 28-year dispute over sovereignty, the court ruled in May 2008 in favour of Singapore but awarded two smaller outcrops, called Middle Rocks, to Malaysia.Google Scholar
- 2.T. Davenport (February 2012) ‘Joint Development in Asia: Some Valuable Lessons Learned’, in C. Schofield (ed.) Maritime Energy Resources in Asia: Legal Regimes and Cooperation, NBR Special Report #37 (Seattle: The National Bureau of Asian Research), p. 140.Google Scholar
- 3.Y. Lyons and T. Davenport (3 July 2012) ‘South China Sea: Limits to Commercial Fishing by Claimants’, RSIS Commentaries (Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies).Google Scholar
- 4.D. Rosenberg (2009) ‘Fisheries Management in the South China Sea’, in S. Bateman and R. Emmers (eds) Security and International Politics in the South China Sea: Towards a Cooperative Management Regime (London: Routledge) p. 70.Google Scholar
- 5.R. Dujarric (15 October 2010) ‘Enhancing Japan’s Position in the Senkaku Dispute’, PacNet #50,(available at http://csis.org/publication/pacnet-50-enhancing-japan’s-position-senkaku-dispute).
- 6.R. Beckman (2009) ‘Legal Regimes for Cooperation in the South China Sea’, in S. Bateman and R. Emmers (eds) Security and International Politics in the South China Sea: Towards a Cooperative Management Regime (London: Routledge), p. 233.Google Scholar
- 7.M. Masahiro (no date available) ‘Seabed Petroleum in the East China Sea: Law of the Sea Issues and the Prospects for Joint Development’, (Faculty of Law, Aichi University, Japan), p. 6.Google Scholar
- 8.Davenport (February 2012) ‘Joint Development in Asia: Some Valuable Lessons Learned’, p. 138.Google Scholar
- 9.S. Tonnesson (Winter 2010), ‘China’s Changing Role in the South China Sea: Reflections of a Scholar’s Workshop’, Harvard Asia Quarterly, vol. XII (3 & 4), p. 26.Google Scholar
- 10.R. Beckman (31 July 2012) ‘The South China Sea Disputes: How States can Clarify their Maritime Claims’, RSIS Commentaries (Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies).Google Scholar
- 11.Tonnesson (Winter 2010) ‘China’s Changing Role in the South China Sea: Reflections of a Scholar’s Workshop’, p. 26.Google Scholar
- 12.Tonnesson (Winter 2010) ‘China’s Changing Role in the South China Sea: Reflections of a Scholar’s Workshop’, p. 26.Google Scholar