Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
The South China Sea disputes are far more than a regional squabble over rocks and reefs—they represent one of the most significant tests of international law, sovereignty, and great power competition in the 21st century. When you study these conflicts, you're examining how modern China balances its historical narratives with its rise as a global power, and how smaller nations navigate between asserting their rights and managing relationships with a dominant neighbor. These disputes touch on core themes you'll encounter throughout your study of modern China: the tension between historical claims and international norms, the role of nationalism in foreign policy, and the strategic importance of resource competition in shaping state behavior.
You're being tested on your ability to connect specific territorial disputes to broader patterns in Chinese foreign policy and international relations. Don't just memorize which country claims which island—understand why these claims matter, how they reflect China's strategic priorities, and what legal and diplomatic frameworks shape the conflict. The disputes illustrate concepts like sovereignty assertion, economic nationalism, and multilateral versus bilateral diplomacy. When you can explain why China prefers bilateral negotiations while ASEAN pushes for multilateral solutions, you're demonstrating the analytical thinking that earns top marks.
China's approach to the South China Sea is rooted in historical narratives that predate modern international law. Understanding how states use history to legitimize territorial claims reveals the intersection of nationalism and foreign policy.
Compare: Nine-dash line vs. Paracel Islands—both rest on historical claims, but the Paracels involve physical control while the nine-dash line represents aspirational boundaries. If an FRQ asks about China's use of history in territorial disputes, note how China employs both symbolic claims and military occupation.
The South China Sea contains some of the world's richest fishing grounds and potentially massive hydrocarbon reserves. Competition for resources drives much of the urgency behind these disputes, connecting territorial claims to economic nationalism.
Compare: Spratly Islands vs. Reed Bank—both involve resource competition, but the Spratlys feature multiple claimants and physical occupation while Reed Bank represents a bilateral dispute over EEZ rights. Reed Bank is your clearest example of UNCLOS provisions being tested.
The South China Sea disputes have become a battleground for competing interpretations of international maritime law. Whether rules-based order can constrain great power behavior is the central question these conflicts pose.
Compare: UNCLOS vs. 2016 Arbitration—UNCLOS provides the framework, while the arbitration case represents its application. The case demonstrates both the power and limitations of international law: it clarified legal rights but couldn't compel Chinese compliance.
The disputes have increasingly become a theater for great power competition, with military posturing and infrastructure development reshaping the regional security environment. How states project power and respond to perceived threats defines this dimension.
Compare: China's island-building vs. U.S. FONOPs—both are assertions of presence and rights, but China builds permanent infrastructure while the U.S. conducts temporary operations. This contrast illustrates different strategies: China changes facts on the ground while the U.S. upholds legal norms through demonstration.
How Southeast Asian nations collectively and individually respond to Chinese pressure reveals the challenges of multilateral diplomacy when power asymmetries exist.
Compare: 2016 Arbitration vs. ASEAN diplomacy—the arbitration sought legal resolution through binding judgment, while ASEAN pursues political resolution through negotiation. China's rejection of the arbitration and preference for bilateral talks over ASEAN frameworks shows how powerful states can choose their preferred arena.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Historical claims vs. international law | Nine-dash line, 2016 Arbitration ruling |
| Resource competition | Spratly Islands, Reed Bank, Scarborough Shoal |
| Physical occupation and control | Paracel Islands, China's artificial islands |
| UNCLOS and EEZ rights | Reed Bank, 2016 Arbitration, UNCLOS framework |
| Great power competition | U.S. FONOPs, China's militarization |
| Multilateral diplomacy challenges | ASEAN Code of Conduct negotiations |
| Gray zone tactics | Scarborough Shoal standoff, Reed Bank confrontations |
| Legal vs. political resolution | 2016 Arbitration vs. ASEAN diplomacy |
Which two disputes best illustrate the conflict between China's historical claims and UNCLOS-based EEZ rights, and why do they demonstrate this tension differently?
Compare China's approach to the Paracel Islands (1974) with its island-building in the Spratlys (2013-present). What do these strategies reveal about how China's methods of asserting sovereignty have evolved?
If an FRQ asks you to evaluate the effectiveness of international law in resolving territorial disputes, which two examples from this guide would you contrast, and what would your argument be?
Why does China prefer bilateral negotiations over ASEAN-led multilateral frameworks? Identify at least two specific advantages this approach provides Beijing.
How do U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations and China's island-building represent competing visions of regional order? What does each action signal about its respective country's strategic priorities?