Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The South China Sea Arbitration and Taiwan’s Claim: Legal and Political Implications

  • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Chinese Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In early 2013, the Philippines initiated the compulsory arbitral procedure under Article 287 and Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) against China, with regard to their disputes in the South China Sea. Three years later, the ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal rendered its award that declared China’s historic rights claim within the U-shaped line unlawful and that none of the Spratly Islands including Itu Aba (Taiping Island) are “islands” entitled to an EEZ. Although the ROC/Taiwan was not the Philippines’ intended party in the case, it was brought into the proceedings and became a de facto party. This paper will illustrate how Taiwan became relevant to the South China Sea arbitration and analyze possible legal and political implications for Taiwan. It is suggested that the Philippines-initiated arbitration may have more serious political implications for Taiwan’s future claim and position in the South China Sea dispute. In particular, Taiwan should carefully manage the One-China/South China Sea/cross-straits policy triangle after the South China Sea arbitration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Article 121 (3) of UNCLOS, “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”

  2. Cf. Article 13 of UNCLOS.

  3. UNCLOS Article 296(2) clearly provides: “Any such decision shall have no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular dispute.”

  4. Some Vietnamese legal experts also seem to support the Tribunal’s decisions, e.g. [11].

  5. Article 9, Annex VII of UNCLOS.

  6. The Tribunal considered this aspect in relation to Vietnam, [3: paras. 179–188].

  7. For example, Philippines argued: “if the largest Spratly feature is incapable of generating an EEZ and continental shelf entitlement, then it is most unlikely that any of the other 750 features will be able to do so”, [31: 89].

  8. One expert describes the Tribunal’s interpretation of Article 121(3) as “missionary”, and said “It will be future tribunals, courts, and state practice that will determine whether this “missionary” aspect of the Award finds favour.” [38].

  9. President Tsai had remarked that the government would not assert excessive claims, although it would also not give up any rights, either. [39].

  10. See the Philippines’ legal counsel Paul Reichler’s statement in [50: 38].

References

  1. Hsiao, A.H.A. 2016. China and the South China sea lawfare. Issues and Studies 52 (2): 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs. 2013. Notification and statement of claim on West Philippine Sea dated January 22 2013. http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/unclos. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.

  3. Arbitration under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Philippines vs. China), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 29 October 2015, PCA Case No. 2013-19. https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1506. Accessed 22 Feb 2017.

  4. South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines vs. China), Award on Merits dated 12 July 2016. http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2086. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.

  5. The Philippines’ Memorial dated 30 March 2014, Vol. I. http://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/Memorial%20of%20the%20Philippines%20Volume%20I.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.

  6. PCA Sixth press release dated July 13 2015. http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1306. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  7. Klein, N. 2005. Dispute settlement in the UN convention on the law of the sea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. China’s Declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS. 2006. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm.#China. after ratification. Accessed 27 Feb 2017.

  9. Chinese Government’s statement on the award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the request of the Republic of the Philippines. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-07/12/c_135507744.htm. Accessed 25 Feb 2017

  10. Chinese Government’s statement on China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. Xinhua News, 12 July 2016. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-07/12/c_135507754.htm. Accessed 22 Feb 2017.

  11. Nguyen, T.L.A. 2016. The South China Sea award: legal implications for Vietnam. Contemporary Southeast Asia 38 (3): 369–374.

  12. Bautista, L. 2016. The Philippines and the arbitral Tribunal’s award: a somber victory and uncertain times ahead. Contemporary Southeast Asia 38 (3): 349–355.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gau, M.S.T. 2012. The U-shaped line and a categorization of the ocean disputes in the South China Sea. Ocean Development and International Law. 43: 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Position paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the matter of jurisdiction in the South China Sea arbitration initiated by the Republic of the Philippines dated December 7 2014. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1217147.shtml. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  15. Procedural Order No. 4 dated April 21 2015. http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1807. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  16. Glaser B. 2014. A role for Taiwan in promoting peace in the South China Sea. CSIS, 15 April 2014. https://www.csis.org/analysis/role-taiwan-promoting-peace-south-china-sea. Accessed 23 Feb 2017

  17. Kuok, L. 2015. Taiwan’s evolving position in the South China Sea – and why other actors should take notice. https://amti.csis.org/taiwans-evolving-position-in-the-south-china-sea-and-why-other-actors-should-take-notice/. Accessed 22 Feb 2017.

  18. Song, Y. 2015. Maritime asia: a Taiwanese perspective. In Till, G. ed. 2015. The changing maritime scene in Asia: rising tensions and future strategic stability. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. 114–127.

  19. The Philippines’ Supplemental Written Submission Vol. I dated March 16 2015. http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.

  20. Ma, Y. 2016. A flawed verdict in the South China Sea: Taiwan rejects the court’s decision, which was not based on all the facts. Wall Street Journal Online, 26 July 2016. http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-flawed-verdict-in-the-south-china-sea-1469553283?tesla=y. Accessed 11 Nov 2016 from ProQuest.

  21. Final Transcript Day 1 – Merits Hearing, 24 November 2015. https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1547. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  22. Final Transcript Day 2 - Merits Hearing, 25 November 2015. http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1548. Accessed 22 Feb 2017.

  23. ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2015. ROC government reiterates its position on South China Sea issues, Press Release No. 240 dated 31 October 2015. http://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=539A9A50A5F8AF9E&sms=37B41539382B84BA&s=F5170FE043DADE98. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  24. ROC (Taiwan) Office of President. 2016. ROC government position on the South China Sea arbitration. Press Release dated 12 July 2016. http://english.president.gov.tw/Default.aspx?tabid=491&itemid=37703&rmid=2355. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  25. ROC (Taiwan) Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2016. ROC position on the South China Sea arbitration. Press Release dated 12 July 2016. http://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=1EADDCFD4C6EC567&s=5B5A9134709EB875. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  26. Sun, K.M. 1995. Policy of the republic of China towards the South China Sea. Marine Policy 9 (5): 401–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang, K.H. 2010. The ROC’s maritime claims and practices with reference to the South China Sea. Ocean Development & International Law 41: 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen, C.I. 2016. Legal aspects of the ROC’s position on the U-shaped line, Prospect Journal 15: 1–27.

  29. Hsiao, A.H. and Lin, C. 2016. Taiwan’s evolving policy towards the South China Sea Dispute, 1992–2006. In Storey, I., and Lin, C.Y. eds. 2016. The South China Sea dispute: navigating diplomatic and strategic tension. Singapore: ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute. 74–103.

  30. Beckman, R., and C. Schofield. 2014. Defining EEZ claims from islands: a potential South China Sea change. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 29: 193–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Final Transcript Day 1– Jurisdiction Hearing, 7 July 2015. http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7. Accessed 22 Feb 2017.

  32. Wang, K. 2016. Making dangerous ground safe: the role of Taiping Island. Prospect Journal 15: 115–139.

    Google Scholar 

  33. ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2015. ROC reiterates position on South China Sea arbitration between Philippines, mainland China. Press Release No. 115 dated May 13 2015. http://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=1EADDCFD4C6EC567&s=C2834B14509069C4. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  34. ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2016. Taiping Island is an island, not a rock, and the ROC possesses full rights associated with an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in accordance with UNCLOS. Press Release No. 023 dated January 23 2016. http://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=539A9A50A5F8AF9E&sms=37B41539382B84BA&s=542A8C89D51D8739. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.

  35. ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2016. Position paper on ROC South China Sea policy dated March 21 2016. http://multilingual.mofa.gov.tw/web/web_UTF-8/South/Position%20Paper%20on%20ROC%20South%20China%20Sea%20Policy.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  36. Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law. 2016. Amicus curiae submission on the issue of the feature of Taiping Island (Itu Aba) pursuant to article 121(1) and article 121(3) of the 1982 United Nations convention on the law of the sea, March 23 2016. http://csil.org.tw/home/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SCSTF-Amicus-Curiae-Brief-final.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2017

  37. The Philippines’ Written Responses dated March 11 2016. http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1849. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.

  38. McDorman, T.L. 2016. The South China Sea arbitration, ASIL Insights 20(17), November 18 2016. https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/20/issue/17/south-china-sea-arbitration. Accessed 22 Feb 2017.

  39. Tsai holds 1st NSC meeting, unveils South China Sea approach. Taiwan Today, July 20, 2016. http://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=2,23&post=3932. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.

  40. Ma, Y. 2015. Consolidating peace in the Taiwan Strait. USA Today, November 22 2015. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/22/taiwan-china-xi-jinping-ma-ying-jeou-1992-consensus-column/76215872/. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  41. South China Sea Peace Initiative, May 26 2015. http://www.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=604CBAA3DB3DDA11&sms=69594088D2AB9C50&s=4589151C339E71C5. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.

  42. Remarks by President Ma on Taiping Island dated January 28 2016. http://english.president.gov.tw/Default.aspx?tabid=491&itemid=36616&rmid=2355. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  43. Guidelines for National Unification adopted by the National Unification Council at its third meeting on February 23 1991 and by the ROC Executive Yuan (Cabinet) at its 2223rd meeting on March 14 1991. http://www.mac.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=68107&ctNode=5910&mp=3&xq_xCat=1991. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.

  44. Chung, L. 2016. Tsai to avoid U-shaped line: Source. Taipei Times, 15 July 2016. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2016/07/15/2003651053. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  45. National Institute for South China Sea Studies. 2016. 14th Cross-strait forum on the South China Sea issue held in Haikou, August 26 2016. http://en.nanhai.org.cn/index.php/Index/Info/content/cid/20/id/2905.html. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  46. Chang, Y.C. 2016. Taiwanese position in the South China Sea dispute: before and after the permanent court of arbitration award. Journal of East Asia and International Law 9 (2): 467–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Buckley, C. 2016. China suggests it has placed weapons on disputed Spratly Islands in South China Sea. New York Times, 15 December 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/world/asia/china-spratly-islands.html?action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article. Accessed 22 Feb 2017

  48. Beckman, R. 2016. Tribunal ruling a game changer. The straits times, 14 July 2016. http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/tribunal-ruling-a-game-changer-south-china-sea. Accessed 22 Feb 2017.

  49. Schofield, C. 2016. A landmark decision in the South China Sea: the scope and implication of the arbitral Tribunal’s award. Contemporary Southeast Asia 38 (3): 339–348.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Final Transcript Day 4 – Merits Hearing, November 30 2015. http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1550. Accessed 22 Feb 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University, 64 Wan Shou Road, Wen Shan, Taipei, Taiwan, 11605, Republic of China

    Anne Hsiu-An Hsiao

Authors
  1. Anne Hsiu-An Hsiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Hsiu-An Hsiao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hsiao, A.HA. The South China Sea Arbitration and Taiwan’s Claim: Legal and Political Implications. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 22, 211–228 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-017-9471-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-017-9471-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation