Reuters reports that U.S. Navy P-3 plane and a Chinese military aircraft had a close encounter over the South China Sea. U.S. Pacific Command said that the U.S aircraft was on an “routine mission operating in accordance to international law.” It is unclear which law that refers to.
However, in the situation with the South China Sea, one international law in regards to maritime territory is the 1982 United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This provided guidelines and rules on boundaries, sea trade, and management of marine natural resources for countries. As this Mic article, “Why Trump’s China policy is dangerous for the Pacific Region and the U.S.,” points out, the United States did not signed this agreement but observes the laws in UNCLOS. According to UNCLOS, a country’s maritime boundary is 12 nautical miles from its shore. The South China Sea is beyond China’s boundaries.
China did sign UNCLOS even though it now realizes this agreement does not favor them as described in this The Diplomat article, “China and UNCLOS: An Inconvenient History.”
Other countries had conflicts with China over the South China Sea. The Phillippines had successfully brought an arbitration case against China in July 2016, in which the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at the Hauge ruled that the Chinese activities in the South China Sea are illegal. Despite the decision against China, China ignore it and still continues to build on the South China Sea. The New York Times article, “Tribunal Rejects Beijing’s Claims in South China Sea,” suggests that the decision only opens more room for discussions and negotiations.
What can stop China from building in the South China Seas if international law and arbitration has proven ineffective in stopping China?
The UN would not be able to do anything about this because China sits on the security council and will veto any resolution. The countries in that surrounding area are smaller than China and the military is not as large as China’s. The United States have a military presence in the Pacific Ocean as a result of WWII.
Does China actually have a right in the South China Sea? If they do, what international law will justify that when the ruling clearly states that China has no justification?