States have been using seas for various purposes, including trade and transportation. As they benefited from sea trade, states began to demarcate their sea lines from other countries, as a result of which there have been many maritime disputes between and among states [1,2]. As maritime disputes repeatedly have been major reasons for devastating wars, some commentators have a fear that the Third World War may break out due to marine disputes and conflicts [1]. With a view to avoiding conflicts and developing the culture of resolving disputes legally and amicably, it was necessary that the international community adopt a law that is internationally accepted by most states, if not by all states. To this end, the first law of the sea was adopted in 1958 in Geneva [3]. The 1958 law of the sea was revised twice, and currently we have a relatively better law (the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea), which is capable of handling disputes connected to seas [3], though it has practical limitations.

The current international law of the sea provides the limits that states may claim on seas. Accordingly, any country may claim a territorial sea not more than 200 miles (12 nautical miles) to be measured from their coast [4]. The rest of the sea, which is out of the territorial sea, is a free zone for navigation, fishing, entertainment, and other purposes. In other words, any country may use this part of the sea for any legal and legitimate purpose, including navigation and fishing. It is common property of all states in the world (res communis) and is termed "high seas [5,6].

This term paper deals with the disputes that arise at sea in the present time, with specific focus on the South China Sea dispute. To this end, international law, judicial decisions by international courts and tribunals, and practices related to seawater will be dealt with.

Principles of International Law

The principles of international law provide a framework for the conduct of states and other international actors in their relations with one another. These principles are derived from customary international law, treaties, and general principles of law recognized by the international community. Some of the fundamental principles of international law include sovereign equality, which asserts that all states are equal in rights and dignity; the prohibition of the use of force, except in self-defense or with authorization by the United Nations Security Council; the respect for human rights and the principle of non-discrimination; and the duty to fulfill treaty obligations in good faith [6,7]. Other principles include the peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the principle of diplomatic immunity. Additionally, the principle of pacta sunt servanda emphasizes that states must honor their obligations under treaties. These principles guide the behavior of states and contribute to the peaceful coexistence, stability, and cooperation among nations in the international community [6].

The fact that seas have many resources, both living and non-living, has been a source of conflicts, and these conflicts necessitated the need to have international law that governs the rights and limits of states’ claims over the sea [7]. International law identified two classifications of sea parts. These are territorial waters (states have sovereignty over them as part of their territory) and high seas, which are supposed to be common (res communis) and accessible by all states in the world [6]. There is also another international law principle, which is commonly known as the right of access to and from the sea.

According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 124 (1.a), landlocked states have the right of access to and from the sea and freedom of transit. In other words, transit states are not at liberty to deny landlocked states the use of their water to get access to the international market [6]. This right is also termed the right of innocent passage [6]. Shaw states that this principle was first introduced in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea, article 14 [6]. According to the principle of the right of innocent passage, the transit state must not hinder free passage of foreign vessels and must notify them of any potential danger. Passage, according to this concept, is defined as navigation through the territorial sea as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

In other words, passage is a belt of coastal waters extending from 3 to 12 nautical miles, or 22.2 km, from the baseline of a coastal state [4,6]. It is used for the purpose of crossing that sea without interfering in the activities of internal waters of that state. A state's internal waters include waters on the landward side of the baseline of its territorial waters, except in archipelagic states (states with many islands). It also includes waterways such as rivers and canals, and sometimes the water within small bays. The definition may include temporary stoppages, but only if they are incidental to ordinary navigation or necessitated by distress or force majeure [6].

Territorial Sea

In international law, the concept of the territorial sea refers to a belt of water adjacent to the coast of a sovereign state. It is considered an integral part of the state's territory and is subject to its sovereignty. The width of the territorial sea is generally recognized as up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, which is the low-water line along the coast. Within this zone, the coastal state exercises full sovereignty, including control over its airspace, the seabed, and the waters above it [6]. This means that the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate and enforce laws pertaining to customs, immigration, security, and the exploitation of natural resources. Foreign vessels passing through the territorial sea enjoy the right of innocent passage, which means they must navigate in a manner that is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state [6].

The legal framework for the territorial sea is provided by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which establishes the rights and obligations of coastal states and other states in this maritime zone. The concept of the territorial sea is a fundamental element of maritime boundaries and serves to delineate the extent of a coastal state's jurisdiction and control over its adjacent waters [4,8,9].

With a view to avoiding conflicts overseas, states adopted a law that enables every coastal state to own some part of the sea as its territorial part. This part of a sea, which extends from the internal waters of a country to the edge of high seas, is called territorial water [6]. Every state has territorial sovereignty over this part of the sea, provided that states shall give other states peaceful passage through the territorial sea [4].

Contiguous Zone

In international law, the contiguous zone refers to a maritime zone adjacent to a coastal state's territorial sea. It extends beyond the territorial sea and typically stretches up to 24 nautical miles from the baseline. The contiguous zone allows a coastal state to exercise limited control over certain matters for the purpose of safeguarding its security and fiscal interests and enforcing specific laws. Within this zone, a coastal state may regulate and prevent customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary violations that could pose a threat or impact its core interests [6].

However, the rights and freedoms of other states are still protected, and the contiguous zone does not grant the same level of sovereignty as the territorial sea. The legal framework for the contiguous zone is provided by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which outlines the rights and obligations of coastal states in this maritime area. The establishment of the contiguous zone allows coastal states to extend their jurisdiction beyond their territorial sea to better protect their interests and maintain security in areas adjacent to their coastlines [4].

According to the 1958 convention on the territorial sea, the contiguous zone is part of a sea that is next to the territorial sea or internal water, and it has an area of not more than 400 miles starting from the internal water [4]. This zone is part of the high sea. The purpose of the contiguous zone is to enable states to have control over customs, fiscal, immigration, and other regulations within their territorial waters [6].

High Seas/International Water

In international law, the concept of the high seas refers to those parts of the oceans that are not under the sovereignty of any specific country. In other words, in order to grant states the right to freely sail over the seas and thereby facilitate many activities thereon, it is agreed by the international community of states that there shall be a part of the seas that is called the high seas or international sea. The high sea is not under the jurisdiction of any state; rather, it is out of the limits of territorial water. The high seas are considered a common heritage of humankind, and they are governed by a set of rules and principles outlined in various international agreements, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) [4]. These rules establish the rights and responsibilities of states with regard to the high seas. Key principles include freedom of navigation, which allows vessels of all states to traverse the high seas without interference, and freedom of fishing, enabling states to engage in fishing activities in these areas [4,6].

Additionally, states have a duty to protect and preserve the marine environment on the high seas. However, while the high seas are open to all states, they are subject to certain limitations and regulations, particularly to ensure the conservation of marine resources and prevent activities such as piracy and illegal fishing. International cooperation and coordination play a crucial role in the effective management and governance of the high seas to ensure their sustainable use for the benefit of all nations [4,6].

Any state can freely sail and undertake fishing or any other legal activities on the high seas. This part of the sea is not only open to coastal states but also to landlocked states [4,6]. However, due to some historical, political, and economic reasons, some states claim more than what is provided by international law as territorial water, and conflicts arose in some places between and among them [4]. The case of the South China Sea is a typical example of states claiming more than what international law normally allows them.

The South China Sea is a significant body of water located in Southeast Asia, bordered by several countries, including China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. It is a highly contested region due to its strategic location, rich natural resources, and vital shipping lanes. The disputes primarily revolve around competing territorial claims and rights over islands, rocks, reefs, and waters in the area. China claims sovereignty over most of the South China Sea, asserting historical rights based on its "nine-dash line" concept. Other countries in the region, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, also claim various parts of the sea [5,10].

The tensions have given rise to territorial disputes, conflicting maritime claims, and incidents involving fishing vessels, naval patrols, and resource exploration. The South China Sea issue has drawn significant international attention, as it raises concerns about freedom of navigation, regional stability, and the application of international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) [11,12]. Efforts to address the disputes and find a peaceful resolution involve diplomatic negotiations, multilateral dialogues, and legal mechanisms to uphold the rule of law and ensure the interests of all involved parties are properly addressed.

The South China Sea consists of more than 30,000 (thirty thousand) small islands, and most of these islands have no inhabitants [5]. It covers an area of about 3,500,000 square kilometers [10]. Currently, these islands are classified in two groups, namely the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands. They are claimed by six countries: Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Presently, the South China Sea is the source of one of the biggest disputes, also termed “the mother of all territorial disputes [10]. The Paracel Islands are being claimed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, while the Spratly Islands are being claimed by China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Brunei [11,12].

In terms of economic benefit, the South China Sea holds substantial economic benefits for the countries in the region and beyond. It is a vital maritime corridor covering 1.4 million square miles through which an estimated one-third of global maritime trade passes, facilitating the movement of goods and energy resources [13]. The sea is rich in natural resources, including oil, natural gas, and fisheries, offering significant economic opportunities for resource exploration and exploitation. The exploration and production of oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea contribute to energy security and economic growth for the countries involved [7]. The abundant fish stocks in the region support the livelihoods of millions of people engaged in fishing and seafood industries, providing a vital source of income and food security.

Additionally, the South China Sea serves as a crucial route for commercial shipping, connecting major economies in Asia and enabling efficient trade flows, thereby bolstering economic integration and regional development. The economic benefit derived from the South China Sea underscores the importance of maintaining stability, peaceful cooperation, and adherence to international law to ensure continued economic prosperity for the countries in the region and beyond [7,13].

China’s Claim

In 1947, China prepared a map that shows her claim over most of the South China Sea. However, the international community has rejected and has not yet accepted the map. According to this map, China is claiming more than 90 percent of the sea [8]. Despite the refusal of the international community to accept her map, China still insists that her claim has historical legitimacy over the majority of the sea [8,9].

China’s claim overlaps with the claims of the three countries: Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Philippines. In the northwest direction, China is claiming some parts of the Gulf of Tonkin, and this contradicts the claim of Vietnam. Vietnam’s claim on the Gulf is marked at a similar distance to that of China, i.e., China’s claim is at the same distance between the Hainan Island and the territorial waters of Vietnam [7,9]. In the same direction, China’s claim is at an equidistant point with the claim of Taiwan, and it covers the place between Taiwan and China’s coast [7]. China’s claim at the central part of the South China Sea does not overlap with others’ as it is marked only to its maximum of 12 nautical miles (200 miles), which is also in line with the international law limits [14].

In general, China's claims in the South China Sea dispute are based on historical, legal, and geographical factors. Here are some details about the basis for China's claims:

Historical Claims

China asserts that it has historical and cultural ties to the South China Sea, dating back centuries. It refers to ancient texts, maps, and archaeological evidence to support its position. China argues that it has exercised jurisdiction and control over the region and its islands for a significant period in history [8,9].

Nine-Dash Line

China's most notable claim is the Nine-Dash Line, which encompasses a large portion of the South China Sea. The Nine-Dash Line, originally drawn by the Republic of China government in 1947, was inherited by the People's Republic of China. It is seen by China as a historical and legal basis for its territorial claims in the region [5,10].

Sovereignty over Islands and Reefs

China claims sovereignty over various islands, reefs, and shoals in the South China Sea, including the Paracel Islands (known as Xisha Islands in Chinese) and the Spratly Islands (known as Nansha Islands in Chinese). China argues that these features have been historically part of its territory and that it has exercised effective control over them [10].

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf

China claims an EEZ and continental shelf in the South China Sea based on the UNCLOS provisions. It argues that certain islands and reefs in the region are entitled to generate maritime zones, including an EEZ and continental shelf, which would provide China with rights to exploit the resources within those areas [7,13].

Strategic and Security Interests

China emphasizes its strategic and security interests in the South China Sea. It argues that the region plays a significant role in its national defense and maritime security. China's claims are driven by its desire to safeguard its sea lines of communication, access to resources, and protect its territorial integrity [7,13].

Historical Presence and Activities

China highlights its historical presence in the South China Sea, including fishing activities, exploration, and development of natural resources. It argues that its activities in the region demonstrate its rights and interests in the disputed waters [8,9].

Overall, China's claims in the South China Sea are based on historical, legal, and strategic factors. The Nine-Dash Line and its historical presence in the region form the core of its territorial claims, while the EEZ and continental shelf provisions of UNCLOS are used to support its rights to maritime resources. The dispute remains a complex and contentious issue, involving multiple claimant states and requiring diplomatic efforts to find a mutually acceptable resolution.

Claim by Others

As the claims over the South China Sea are disputable, for the purpose of this article, it is believed to be necessary to see the major claims and disputes.

1. The Philippines

The South China Sea is an area with tensions and potential war due to conflicts of interest between and among the countries surrounding it. The tension is more between China and the Philippines [9,15]. The tension in recent times increased because in 2012, China took the unoccupied part of the sea, which is known as Scarborough Reef, though there was an agreement not to occupy it, and currently China is building artificial islands on the reef to expand and strengthen its naval force in the area, thereby controlling the sea route and every activity thereon [9,16].

The Philippines, before 2009, was claiming part of the sea that was beyond the internationally accepted limit, but in 2009 she admitted the illegality of her claim and prepared a landmark baseline that shows that her claims are limited to the internationally accepted territorial and contiguous zone [14]. The Philippines is currently claiming that part of the sea up to 12 nautical miles, or 200 miles, from its coast belongs to it. This claim puts her in a better standing before international law or before international courts or arbitrators, though it is not agreed upon by China [14].

The Philippines has claims not on all the Spratly Islands but only on some parts of it, which are known as the Kalayaan Group [9,15]. Though the Philippines bases its claim on part of the Spratly Islands in accordance with the above legal limits, China claims all of it and is even currently building artificial islands on them, and the country is trying to secure its claim by legal remedies. In other words, the Philippines cannot get her claim by force, as its force is significantly weaker as compared to that of China [17].

In general, the Philippines has been actively involved in the South China Sea dispute and has put forth several bases for its claims in the region. Here are some details about the basis for the Philippines' claims:

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Extended Continental Shelf

The Philippines asserts its claims in the South China Sea based on its EEZ and extended continental shelf as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It argues that its EEZ grants it rights to the exploration and utilization of the marine resources within the zone [7,13].

Historic Title and Effective Occupation

The Philippines argues that it has a historic title and has effectively occupied certain features in the South China Sea. It claims that these features, including the Spratly Islands (known as Kalayaan Islands in the Philippines), have been under Philippine jurisdiction and control since before the adoption of UNCLOS [7,13].

UNCLOS Arbitral Award

In 2016, the Philippines pursued arbitration against China under UNCLOS. The Arbitral Tribunal, in its ruling, invalidated China's "nine-dash line" claim and clarified that certain features in the South China Sea are rocks or low-tide elevations, not entitled to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. The Philippines sees this arbitral award as a basis for its claims and a confirmation of its rights under international law [18].

Freedom of Navigation and Overflight

The Philippines stresses the importance of freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea. It argues that the disputed waters are international waters through which vital sea lanes pass, and any attempt to restrict these rights would go against international law and impede regional stability [6].

Peaceful Settlement and Multilateral Approaches

The Philippines advocates for the peaceful settlement of the dispute through diplomacy, negotiations, and adherence to international law. It actively engages in multilateral platforms such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its Code of Conduct (COC) framework to address the issue collectively with other claimant states [19].

Overall, the Philippines' claims in the South China Sea are primarily based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), historic title, effective occupation, the UNCLOS Arbitral Award, and the principles of freedom of navigation and peaceful settlement. The country seeks to protect its maritime rights, ensure regional stability, and promote the preservation of the marine environment in the disputed area.

2. Malaysia

The overlapping claims of Malaysia over the South China Sea trace their beginning back to 1979, and they are not yet fully resolved. Her claim includes some parts of the Indonesian Tudjuh Archipelago, and it overlaps with the claims of the Philippines. She also has overlapping claims with Vietnam, as the country is claiming parts of the island of Sabah and Sarawak. Despite its overlapping claims with the above-mentioned countries, Malaysia is making good progress in negotiating with them, and the disagreement is on the verge of being resolved [7,9].

Malaysia’s claim on the South China Sea has only a few disagreements with China’s claim; rather, much of its claims overlap with those of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Most of her claims with China and the rest are being solved by a negotiation made with the countries [7,20].

Malaysia, along with other countries in the region, has asserted its claims in the South China Sea dispute. Here are some details about Malaysia's basis for its claims:

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf

Malaysia's claims in the South China Sea are based on its EEZ and continental shelf as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It argues that its coastlines, including those of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak, grant it rights to an EEZ and the resources within it [7,13].

Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal

Malaysia asserts its claims over certain features in the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands (known as Kepulauan Spratly in Malay) and the Scarborough Shoal (known as Beting Serupai in Malay). It argues that these features, which it refers to as maritime features, fall within its EEZ and continental shelf [7,9].

Historical Presence and Occupation

Malaysia asserts that it has historically occupied and exercised administrative control over some of the features in the South China Sea. It emphasizes that historical records, including maps, demonstrate its presence in the region [8,9].

Peaceful Resolution and International Law

Malaysia emphasizes the importance of resolving the South China Sea dispute through peaceful means, in accordance with international law, particularly UNCLOS. It advocates for dialogue, negotiations, and adherence to international legal frameworks to address competing territorial and maritime claims [7,13].

Economic and Strategic Interests

The South China Sea holds significant economic and strategic importance for Malaysia. It is a vital waterway for international trade, and the region is believed to have substantial oil and gas reserves. Malaysia's claims are driven by its interest in protecting its maritime resources, promoting economic development, and ensuring regional stability [7,13].

Overall, the basis for Malaysia's claims in the South China Sea is rooted in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), continental shelf, historical presence, and adherence to international law. The country emphasizes peaceful resolutions, economic interests, and regional cooperation to address the complex issues surrounding the dispute [20].

3. Vietnam

According to Cossa [20], Vietnam asserts its claim over the entire Spratly Islands and a significant portion of the Paracel Islands. However, due to deviations from international law, Vietnam made adjustments to its claim. In 2009, Vietnam revised its baseline in accordance with international law and reached agreements with Indonesia and Malaysia, both of which have overlapping claims. A dispute arose between Vietnam and China when they reached an agreement with Malaysia concerning a portion of the sea that China also claims [14]. Notably, the disagreement between Vietnam and China is currently being addressed through negotiations and has not been brought before international tribunals [7].

In general, the South China Sea dispute involves competing territorial and maritime claims by several countries in the region, including Vietnam. Vietnam asserts its claims over parts of the South China Sea based on historical, legal, and geographical factors. Here are some details about Vietnam's claims:

Historical Claims

Vietnam argues that it has historically exercised sovereignty over certain islands and features in the South China Sea. It points to historical records, maps, and cultural connections as evidence of its presence and control over these areas for centuries [8,9].

The Nine-Dash Line

Vietnam, like other claimant states, rejects China's expansive Nine-Dash Line claim, which encompasses a significant portion of the South China Sea. Vietnam argues that the Nine-Dash Line lacks a legal basis under international law and infringes upon its sovereign rights and jurisdiction [5,10].

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Vietnam claims an Exclusive Economic Zone and continental shelf in the South China Sea based on its coastline, archipelagos, and relevant maritime features. Vietnam asserts its rights to explore and exploit the natural resources in these areas [20].

Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands

Vietnam claims sovereignty over the Spratly Islands (known as Truong Sa in Vietnamese) and the Paracel Islands (known as Hoàng Sa in Vietnamese). It argues that these islands and features are historically and geographically part of its territory and fall within its EEZ and continental shelf [7,9].

Legal Position

Vietnam supports the application and adherence to international law, particularly UNCLOS, as the basis for resolving disputes in the South China Sea. It emphasizes the importance of peaceful negotiations, dialogue, and multilateral mechanisms to address competing claims and maintain regional stability [20].

Overall, Vietnam's claims in the South China Sea reflect its historical connection to the region, adherence to international law, and the desire to protect its national interests [7]. The dispute remains a complex and sensitive issue, requiring diplomatic efforts and multilateral cooperation to find a mutually acceptable resolution among the claimant states.

4. Legality of the US’s intervention

In the South China Sea dispute, the involvement of the United States of America has been in support of countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam, while taking a position against China. This raises questions regarding the legitimacy of the U.S.'s claim in the region and its underlying motives [21]. Does the U.S. have a legitimate basis for its involvement, or is it primarily driven by its own interests? This section will delve into the analysis of these questions in the subsequent part of this article.

The legality of the United States' intervention in the South China Sea dispute is a complex and contested issue. Different arguments can be made regarding the legality of the actions taken by the United States. Here are two contrasting arguments: [21,22]

Legality of US Intervention

Freedom of Navigation: The United States argues that its intervention in the South China Sea is aimed at upholding freedom of navigation and ensuring the free flow of commerce in accordance with international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The US contends that China's excessive maritime claims, including the construction of artificial islands and the assertion of territorial rights over disputed features, threaten freedom of navigation in the region. As a result, the US asserts its right to conduct naval operations and patrols to challenge those claims and ensure unrestricted access to international waters.

UNCLOS Provisions: The US maintains that its actions are consistent with UNCLOS provisions, which guarantee the rights and freedoms of all states in the high seas or international waters. The US argues that China's expansive claims, such as the nine-dash line, are inconsistent with UNCLOS, and therefore, the US is justified in challenging those claims to protect the rights of all nations.

Illegality of US Intervention

Non-Party to UNCLOS: Critics argue that the United States' intervention is problematic since it is not a party to UNCLOS. While the US abides by many UNCLOS provisions as customary international law, its non-membership undermines its authority to enforce specific provisions or engage in arbitration or dispute settlement procedures under the treaty.

Sovereignty and Non-Interference: China and some other states argue that the US intervention infringes upon China's sovereignty and interferes in a bilateral dispute. They contend that the South China Sea disputes should be resolved through peaceful negotiations between the claimants states directly involved, without external interference. They view the US actions as exacerbating tensions and undermining regional stability.

Risk of Escalation: Critics also express concerns that the US intervention increases the risk of military confrontation and escalates tensions in the region. They argue that the presence of US naval forces and their provocative actions, such as freedom of navigation operations, contribute to a militarization of the South China Sea and heighten the potential for accidents or miscalculations that could lead to conflict.

It is important to note that the legal arguments surrounding the US intervention in the South China Sea dispute are complex and subject to differing interpretations based on the perspectives and interests of the involved parties. The ultimate determination of legality may rely on specific factual circumstances, the application of international law, and the resolution of the dispute through peaceful means [21.22].

5. The Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Effect of its Decisions

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization established in 1899 and headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands. The PCA provides a framework for the peaceful settlement of disputes between states, international organizations, or private parties by facilitating arbitration, conciliation, and other forms of alternative dispute resolution [18].

The Mandates of the Permanent Court of Arbitration include [18,23]

Arbitration: The PCA serves as a platform for parties to submit disputes to binding arbitration. Arbitration is a process where parties present their cases before an impartial tribunal, and the tribunal renders a legally binding decision, known as an arbitral award. The PCA assists in the organization and administration of arbitral proceedings, ensuring a fair and efficient process.

Conciliation: The PCA facilitates conciliation proceedings, which aim to help parties reach a mutually agreeable settlement through negotiation and mediation. Conciliation differs from arbitration in that the process is non-binding, and the parties have more control over the outcome. The PCA provides administrative support and appoints conciliators to assist parties in resolving their disputes.

Fact-finding and expert determination: The PCA offers services for fact-finding and expert determination in disputes where parties seek an independent assessment or technical expertise on specific issues. The PCA assists in the appointment of independent experts or fact-finding commissions to provide impartial findings and opinions.

Support for special agreements and rules: The PCA assists parties in the drafting and implementation of special agreements and rules for the resolution of their disputes. These agreements may establish specific procedures or rules tailored to the needs of the parties, allowing for a flexible and customized approach to dispute resolution.

Administrative support and facilities: The PCA provides administrative support and facilities for parties involved in dispute resolution proceedings. This includes logistical support, administrative services, and the provision of hearing rooms and other necessary resources.

It is important to note that the PCA is distinct from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. While both institutions are located in The Hague, the PCA is specifically focused on facilitating arbitration and other dispute resolution mechanisms, while the ICJ primarily deals with contentious cases between states [23].

The Permanent Court of Arbitration is a global institution located in the Netherlands, The Hague. It was established in 1899 for the purpose of conducting arbitration when states willfully submit their case to it. In other words, the Court has no mandatory jurisdiction over any case [6]. Moreover, the court has no judges to entertain cases; rather, the states involved select their arbitrator, and the arbitrator decides based on available international laws and customary international laws. Unlike the procedures in most ordinary courts, the court proceedings are conducted in closed sessions and confidentially [18]. A state may also take its case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration without the presence of its disputant, and the court may give its decision ex parte, i.e., in the absence of the other party [18]. 

The case of the South China Sea was brought before the international court. In 2013, the Philippines sued China before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the court ruled out that China has no legitimate claim on the ground that the map prepared by China is not in line with the international law of the sea, but China has not accepted the decision [15]. China does not base her argument on international law; rather, her claim mainly depends on historical rights [5,17]. Despite the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, China declared immediately that she does not accept the decision by the Arbitration Court [17]. For the decision cannot be enforced by any international body, the Philippines has given up on the execution of the decision of the court, as a result of which she is currently trying to resolve the situation by due negotiation with China [5,15,24].

The dispute over the South China Sea has a long history, and it is mostly based on political, economic, and security interests and concerns. The disputants claim part of it not only based on international law of the sea but mostly based on their respective multi-dimensional interests. Some of them invoke international law, while the others, like China, invoke historical rights as well.

It is possible to resolve the South China Sea dispute amicably by states that have claims on the sea, and there are also some attempts to undertake negotiations, like the one made between China and the Philippines in the previous years. However, the undue intervention of the Western countries, particularly the US, is complicating the negotiation process, even currently changing the tension to a potential military confrontation. The US is not only intervening in the negotiation process but also sending their warships to the area, and this is escalating the dispute.

One of the limitations in international law is the absence of a compulsory judiciary and law enforcement entity, leading to the exploitation of international law by powerful nations. In simpler terms, powerful states selectively adhere to international law based on their own interests. For example, the United States is engaged in a dispute with Mexico concerning the Colorado River, as it is utilizing the river in violation of principles outlined in international law. While Mexico is invoking international law to prevent the unfair usage of the river by the US, the latter is disregarding the Helsinki and UN conventions related to the utilization of transboundary water bodies. These conventions explicitly state that the upstream country cannot exploit the Transboundary River to the detriment of downstream riparian states.

Nevertheless, the United States, which previously disregarded international law to serve its own interests, is now invoking international law to safeguard its interests and those of its allies in the South China Sea region. Despite being thousands of miles away from the South China Sea, the US argues that it has the right to intervene in the dispute to ensure the adherence and enforcement of international maritime law. However, there is no legal provision or decision that authorizes the US to act as an international law enforcer in this context. Its actions are driven by its own interests and are detrimental to the interests of China. This approach indicates that the US is relying on hard diplomacy to pursue its interests, which is not a prudent strategy in a contemporary world that advocates for multipolarity and cooperation among states in the international community. Therefore, in order to prevent such abuses of power, other countries like China, Russia, and others must work together to maintain a balance of interests. Additionally, the United Nations Security Council should address this issue before it escalates further.

Given the nature of international law and the aforementioned examples, it has become evident that there is unequal respect for international law between first world and third world countries, with the Western nations, such as the United States, appearing to exploit international law to their advantage. However, if all states genuinely prioritize global peace, it is imperative that international law and state sovereignty are equally respected in all circumstances. Moreover, interference in the internal and regional affairs of other countries poses a threat and may supplant the preferred approach of employing soft diplomacy in international relations. In other words, states' sovereignty should be respected in accordance with the principles and essence of the Westphalian system. Therefore, it is crucial for states to engage in discussions to ensure that the law governs all states uniformly and that water resources are utilized fairly and cooperatively, rather than being subjected to competition. In this regard, powerful states should rely on the rule of law rather than mere power.

As many commentators agree, though the South China Sea on the face of it looks like a dispute between China on the one hand and the other five surrounding states on the other hand, practically speaking, it is a manifestation of a rivalry between the two elephants, China and the US, so as to come to the front line of global economic and political hegemony. Hence, the US and China have to give priority to peaceful resolution of disputes for the sake of global peace and security.

1. Robb J. The Omega Letter. From The Omega Letter Commentary. 2012.
2. Ahmed A. International Law of the Sea: An overlook and case study. Beijing L. Rev. 2017; 8: 21-40.
3. Treves T. Codification Division, Office of Legal Affairs. Audiovisual Library of International Law. 2017.
4. Ravin M. ITLOS and Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Germany: United Nations-The Nippon Foundation Fellow. 2005.
5. Lang A, Lunn J. The South China Sea dispute. London: House of Commons Library. 2016.
6. Shaw MN. International Law 6th edition. Cambridge University Press. 2008.
7. Poling GB. The South China Sea in Focus; clarifying the limits of Maritime disputes. New York: Center for strategic and international studies. 2013.
8. Beech H. Where exactly did China get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line from? Shanghai: Time Inc. 2016.
9. Hyer E. The South China Sea Disputes: Implications of China’s earlier territorial settlements. Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia. 1995; 68: 34-54.
10. Beukel E. China and the South China Sea: Two faces of power in the rising China’s neighborhood policy. DIIS Working Paper. 2010.
11. Beckman R. Geopolitics, international law and the South China Sea. 2012.
12. Kim J. Territorial disputes in the South China Sea: Implications for Security in Asia and beyond. Air University Press. 2015.
13. Gewirtz P. Limits of Law in the South China Sea. Brooking: East Asia Policy Studies. 2016.
14. Fravel TM. China’s Strategy in the South China Sea. Contemporary Southeast Asia. 2011; 33: 292-319.
15. Reeves L. The South China Sea disputes: Territorial and Maritime differences between the Philippines and China. J Global Faultlines. 2019; 6: 39-61.
16. Glaser BS. Conflict in the South China Sea. New York: Council on foreign relations. 2015.
17. Hunt K. South China Sea: Court rules in favor of the Philippines over China. CNN. 2016.
18. Portal TH. 2005. The Hague Justice Portal. From Permanent Court of Arbitration. 2005.
19. Mahbubani K, Sng J. The ASEAN Miracle: A Catalyst for Peace. Singapore: NUS Press. Cambodian J Int’l Studies. 2017; 1: 175-179.
20. Cossa RA. Security implications of conflict in South China Sea: Exploring potential triggers of conflict. A Pacific Forum CSIS Report. 1998.
21. Hong N. The South China Sea Disputes and U.S.-China Relations: Managing the Maritime Silk Road. Palgrave Macmillan. 2018.
22. Teixeira, V. The United States’ China Containment Strategy and the South China Sea Dispute. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies. 2019; 13: 166-193.
23. Teles PG. The Permanent Court of Arbitration: International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution. Brill/Nijhoff. 2019.
24. Mustafa A. South China Sea Arbitration. Islamabad: Research Society of International Law. 2017.