Approximately one-third of the world’s maritime traffic passes the South China Sea (SCS), involving billions of dollars in exports and imports. Half of all ships deliver oil and gas from the Middle East into the South China Sea to China, Japan, the United States, and other destinations. The Marine environment also makes it militarily strategic and important for national security. Conflicts and disputes in the South China Sea are frequently the result of global issues. This article discusses China’s reconciliatory policies for resolving disputes and maintaining the status quo in the South China Sea without taking military measures.
Paracels primarily cover islands and reefs, with reefs being a chain of stoneware vessels or corals in or near water. The Spratlys have several islands, although mostly rocky outcrops and rocks that may not be visible even above water when the waves are high. Six governments actively seek sections or all of the South China Sea and its features worldwide. These disputes involve China, Taiwan, and Vietnam vying over Paracels Island, while China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines are fighting for the Spratly Islands.
The South China Sea maritime border issue is difficult to resolve since the reasons and concerns of the many claims are diverse. To summarise, the conflict is difficult to resolve using a single approach because its commitment has been both limited and unclear, involving land, maritime zones, and the abundant riches thought to reside in the South China Sea. Other underlying claimant reasons differ, but economics is certainly a consistent motivating force. Many claims appear to be motivated by the prospect of profit from oil, gas, fish, and mineral resources, however (particularly in the case of oil) this is based on anticipation of future discoveries rather than proof of existing reserves. Additional motivation comes from the desire to use claimed areas to extend exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelf zones, which allow a country to control the exploration, exploitation, and preservation of natural resources.
China has consistently advocated for a settlement through bilateral diplomacy and commercial activity to limit the possibility of confrontation, particularly with ASEAN governments in East Asia. The Philippines held a tribunal for claims in the South China Sea to put pressure on China over their claims to the islands. Although China rejected the tribunal’s verdict, they attempted to defuse tensions through direct diplomatic channels. Premiers of both countries met in 2017 to defuse tensions over island claims and boost commerce and economic development. A moderate and compromising approach to such negotiations appears to demonstrate Beijing’s recognition that a stable, defined boundary with a friendly neighbour was more aligned with their foreign policy of stable relations.
China has a well-defined policy on defending its political interests in the region and takes stern actions to protect it but it attempts to resolve them by diplomatic measures. China is a signatory member of the United Nations Convention on the Laws of Seas (UNCLOS) and ratified the document, yet still holds certain reservations specifically on the arbitration provisions. According to international norms of cooperation, China prefers to address conflicts through bilateral talks and direct engagement. As a member of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, China has officially handled 39 disputes. China’s attitude to boundary disputes must be understood in light of China’s underlying strategic considerations of national interest and other security concerns. The PRC has demonstrated great flexibility in negotiating boundary settlements in an attempt to bolster amicable relations and maintain a favorable balance of power.
The claimant state’s relations have stabilized to the extent that their behavior no longer appears threatening. and militarisation is unlikely to be utilized to resolve the issue. Under UNCLOS, claimant States must make every endeavour to engage in practical temporary arrangements until ultimate boundary negotiation. Furthermore, until the sovereignty and boundary concerns are ultimately resolved, they are required not to take any actions that jeopardize or impede the achievement of a definitive agreement on the boundaries. The lack of agreement on the precise geographic area that will be subject to joint development in the Spratly Islands is a major impediment to the agreement of provisional arrangements concerning joint development in the Spratly Islands. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the claimants have fundamental differences over the appropriate forum for addressing these issues. China argues for bilateral negotiations, while ASEAN claimants argue for bilateral negotiations.
China’s bilateral negotiation approach for South China dispute settlement is consistent with its goal of maintaining regional peace while promoting its interests. By prioritizing one-on-one negotiations, China avoids multilateral frameworks that could dilute its leverage, allowing it to handle conflicts on terms more favourable to its position. Commercial activity, such as trade and investment efforts, is a complementary instrument for strengthening economic interdependence by generating a shared motivation to avoid conflict. For example, with its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and substantial infrastructure investments, China has established itself as a critical economic partner for many ASEAN member countries. These economic links frequently lead to a reluctance among these countries to take antagonistic positions against China in regional crises.
Furthermore, by advocating bilateralism, China avoids collective resistance from ASEAN, which could arise in multilateral talks. This technique enables Beijing to create a narrative of peaceful resolution while gradually increasing its power in the region. As a result, China’s diplomatic and economic efforts have helped to reduce tensions, even as it maintains a strategic foothold contested areas such as the South China Sea.