Legally Blind

As convenient as it is to draw boundaries on land, the South China Sea remains disputed. Reporting from the United Nation Security Council (UNSC), Tulica Bhattacharya addresses the legality of the territorial claims made by the nations.

Since the matter remained extensively disputed, there seemed to be a larger storm in committee than at sea. With territorial rights being based on a spectrum of claims, the legality of the South China Sea was brought under the limelight for further discussion.

The Delegate of People’s Republic of China (China) stated that the Arbitral Tribunal was not binding and that the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) failed to tackle the fragility of the situation. Consequently, the Delegate implied that the assertions made by other nations are lost in the futility of the Convention. The Delegate of Oriental Republic of Uruguay, supporting the same, emphasised that the conflict revolves around the sentimental values which are influenced by historical facts. Thus, she suggested that the committee must find other ways to determine maritime boundaries.

The Delegate of Republic of Philippines, however, countered these proclamations by reinstating that precision must be applied in terminology to prevent flaws from being reshaped as loopholes. Furthermore, expressing disappointment in the lack of Chinese involvement in the Tribunal, the Delegate stated “… features of the sea must be abided by law, rather than relying on historical claims.” The Delegate of Japan stated that China had no affirmative legal claims on the Spratlys Islands, but if they insisted on claiming superiority on the basis of establishment of historical civilisations, then they would have to acknowledge Vietnam’s rights as well.

The blame-game continued as nations alleged each other of greed and ulterior motives. The Delegate of the United States of America (USA) raised concerns over the militarisation of the artificially built islands, which he believed was proof of China’s preparation for future combat. Thus, the Delegate claimed that the USA’s intervention to protect international waters and defend its right to freedom of navigation were justified. The Delegate of Republic of France stated that while China refrained from using legal terminology to base their claims on historical background, the Filipino claim was far too modern yet legally correct.

With both sides balancing the equation, the issue at hand still remains unresolved. Whether historical facts take the pedestal, or it is the international law shall wear the crown, there still lies a great deal of uncertainty in the fate of the South China Sea.

(Edited by Shruthi Subramanian)