Introduction
The South China Sea conflict represents one of the most complex and enduring geopolitical disputes in the contemporary world, involving multiple state actors and overlapping territorial claims. This essay aims to analyse the conflict through the lens of conflict management tools, examining its historical background, the conflicting issues and parties involved, and the evolution of the dispute into its current manifestations. By applying conflict management frameworks such as negotiation, mediation, and power analysis, this paper seeks to provide a structured understanding of the dispute and offer recommendations for de-escalation and resolution. The discussion will focus on the key drivers of tension, the role of international law, and the potential for collaborative approaches to mitigate hostilities. Ultimately, this essay argues that while deep-rooted historical and strategic interests exacerbate the South China Sea conflict, conflict management tools can offer pathways to reduce tensions and foster dialogue among the involved parties.
Background of the South China Sea Conflict
The South China Sea, a vital maritime region in Southeast Asia, is a semi-enclosed sea covering approximately 3.5 million square kilometres, rich in natural resources and a critical corridor for global trade. The conflict traces its origins to post-World War II territorial disputes, particularly following the emergence of newly independent states in the region. Claims over islands, reefs, and maritime zones—particularly the Spratly and Paracel Islands—have been contested by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. China’s assertion of the ‘nine-dash line,’ a demarcation claiming nearly 80% of the South China Sea, is rooted in historical maps but lacks precise legal grounding under international law (Storey, 2017). This claim overlaps with the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of other claimant states, leading to recurring tensions since the mid-20th century.
Historically, the conflict intensified during the Cold War, as ideological divisions and external powers, including the United States and the Soviet Union, indirectly influenced regional dynamics. By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, China’s rapid economic and military rise further complicated matters, with its land reclamation activities and militarisation of disputed features drawing international concern (Kaplan, 2014). The background of this conflict, therefore, reveals a multifaceted struggle over sovereignty, resources (including oil and gas reserves), and strategic dominance, setting the stage for applying conflict management tools to dissect the underlying issues.
Conflicting Issues and Parties Involved
At the heart of the South China Sea conflict are overlapping territorial and maritime claims, compounded by resource exploitation and strategic interests. China’s expansive nine-dash line claim directly conflicts with the EEZs of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). For instance, the Philippines challenged China’s claims in the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling, which declared China’s historical claims invalid; however, China rejected the ruling, highlighting the limits of legal mechanisms in conflict resolution (Thayer, 2016). Additionally, the region’s estimated 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas make control over these waters economically significant (EIA, 2013).
The parties involved include the primary claimant states—China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan—with China often perceived as the dominant actor due to its military and economic clout. Beyond these, external powers such as the United States, Japan, and Australia have interests tied to freedom of navigation and regional stability, often conducting naval exercises to counterbalance China’s assertiveness. Non-state actors, such as fishing communities and environmental groups, are also indirectly affected, as overfishing and reef destruction exacerbate local tensions. A conflict management perspective, particularly power analysis, reveals an asymmetry in capabilities, with China’s dominance creating a structural barrier to equitable negotiation (Lederach, 2003). Addressing these issues requires acknowledging both the material (resources, territory) and intangible (national pride, historical grievances) dimensions of the conflict.
Evolution and Current Manifestations of the Conflict
The South China Sea dispute has evolved from sporadic skirmishes in the 1970s and 1980s—such as the 1974 Battle of the Paracel Islands between China and South Vietnam—into a more sophisticated and militarised confrontation today. The 1990s marked a turning point with the adoption of the 1992 ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea, which aimed to promote peaceful resolution but lacked binding enforcement (ASEAN, 1992). Tensions escalated in the 2000s as China began large-scale land reclamation and constructed military facilities on artificial islands, prompting condemnation from other claimants and the international community.
In its current manifestation, the conflict is characterised by frequent stand-offs between naval and fishing vessels, as seen in the 2019 Vietnamese-Chinese confrontation near Vanguard Bank. Additionally, the United States’ Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) challenge China’s claims, further internationalising the dispute. The COVID-19 pandemic temporarily reduced physical encounters, yet virtual diplomacy and propaganda have kept tensions alive. From a conflict management standpoint, this evolution reflects a shift from direct violence to structural and cultural forms of conflict, where power imbalances and narratives of sovereignty sustain hostility (Galtung, 1990). This complexity necessitates multi-track diplomacy, involving both state and non-state actors, to address underlying grievances.
Recommendations Using Conflict Management Tools
Applying conflict management tools offers a pathway to mitigate the South China Sea conflict, though complete resolution remains elusive. First, negotiation and confidence-building measures (CBMs) are essential to reduce immediate tensions. Joint resource exploration agreements, similar to those implemented in the Gulf of Thailand between Thailand and Malaysia, could serve as a model for shared economic benefits in disputed areas (Schofield, 2011). Such initiatives would require ASEAN to play a pivotal role in facilitating dialogue, despite its internal divisions.
Second, mediation by a neutral third party—potentially the United Nations or a consortium of non-claimant states—could help de-escalate disputes over specific flashpoints. Mediation would focus on procedural rather than substantive outcomes, encouraging adherence to UNCLOS and fostering incremental trust. However, China’s reluctance to involve external actors poses a significant challenge, necessitating a culturally sensitive approach that respects its emphasis on bilateral negotiations (Lederach, 2003).
Finally, a power analysis suggests addressing the asymmetry between China and other claimants through coalition-building. Smaller states like Vietnam and the Philippines could strengthen partnerships with external actors such as the United States and Japan, not for confrontation but to balance negotiations. Simultaneously, public diplomacy campaigns could shift narratives away from zero-sum outcomes, promoting the South China Sea as a shared space for regional prosperity. These recommendations, while not exhaustive, highlight the practicality of conflict management tools in navigating this entrenched dispute.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the South China Sea conflict embodies a intricate web of historical claims, resource competition, and strategic rivalries, evolving over decades into a multifaceted geopolitical challenge. Through the application of conflict management tools such as negotiation, mediation, and power analysis, this essay has identified key issues, including overlapping claims and power imbalances, while tracing the dispute’s development into its militarised and internationalised present state. Recommendations, including confidence-building measures and coalition-building, offer pragmatic steps to mitigate tensions, though deep-seated historical grievances and national interests limit the scope for immediate resolution. The implications of this analysis suggest that sustained dialogue, supported by international norms like UNCLOS, remains critical to preventing escalation. Ultimately, managing the South China Sea conflict requires a delicate balance of diplomacy and strategic patience, ensuring that cooperation prevails over confrontation in this vital maritime region.
References
- ASEAN. (1992) ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea. Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
- EIA. (2013) South China Sea Energy Data and Analysis. U.S. Energy Information Administration.
- Galtung, J. (1990) Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), pp. 291-305.
- Kaplan, R. D. (2014) Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific. Random House.
- Lederach, J. P. (2003) The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. Good Books.
- Schofield, C. (2011) Maritime Energy Resources in Asia: Legal Regimes and Cooperation. NBR Special Report, 35, pp. 1-20.
- Storey, I. (2017) Assessing the ASEAN-China Framework for the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 39(2), pp. 199-223.
- Thayer, C. A. (2016) The South China Sea in Focus: Clarifying the Limits of Maritime Dispute. Center for Strategic and International Studies.
