Sengketa Perbatasan Maritim Di Asia Pasifik ; Masa Depan Beserta Kemungkinannya

SENGKETA PERBATASAN MARITIM DI ASIA PASIFIK ; MASA DEPAN BESERTA KEMUNGKINANNYA

Pendahuluan

Salah satu permasalahan yang terjadi di Asia Pasifik yang merupakan sengketa multi multi nasiona nasionall adalah adalah sengketa sengketa perbata perbatasan san maritim maritim yang terjadi terjadi di beberap beberapa a tempat di kawasan Asia Pasifik. Hal ini menjadi sengketa multi nasional karena adanya klaim yang tumpang tindih antara dua atau lebih negara. Sengketa yang terj terjad adii

juga juga memi memili liki ki dasa dasarr yang yang berb berbed edaa-be beda da,, masi masing ng-m -mas asin ing g nega negara ra

mempunyai dasar sendiri-sendiri dalam melakukan klaim atas wilayahnya, ada yang yang mengg mengguna unaka kan n dasa dasarr histor historis is seba sebaga gaii dasar dasar klaim klaimnya nya,, ada ada juga juga yang yang ditimbulkan ditimbulkan akibat diterapkannya diterapkannya UNCLOS UNCLOS sebagai sebagai dasar dalam menentukan menentukan bata batas s wila wilaya yahn hnya ya sesu sesuai ai deng dengan an rezi rezim m yang yang dimu dimuat at di dala dalam m UNCL UNCLOS OS.. Menariknya walau memiliki dasar yang berbeda-beda, namun semua klaim yang merupakan hasil dari kepentingan nasional ( National  Interest) masing-masing Negara yang terlibat. Setiap negara melihat wilayah territorial sebagai bagian yang penting, penting, dimana dimana wilayah wilayah territor territorial ial merupaka merupakan n media media dalam dalam penggal penggalian ian sumb sumber er daya daya yang yang san sangat gat

dibut ibutuh uhka kan n

oleh oleh nega negarra

untu untuk k

mendu enduku kung ng

pembangunan dan kesinambungan Negara. Kemudian faktor lain yang memicu terjadinya sengketa adalah rasa nasionalisme atau kebanggaan dari masingmasing Negara.

Salah satu sengketa perbatasan yang paling kompleks di kawasan Asia Pasifik adalah sengketa Spratly. Sengketa yang terjadi di wilayah Laut China Selatan ini melib melibatk atkan an 5 negar negara a yaitu yaitu China China,, Vietn Vietnam am,, Phili Philipin pina, a, Malay Malaysi sia a dan dan Brun Brunei ei Darusssalam. Seperti yang telah diuraikan di atas, setiap Negara mempunyai dasar yang berbeda-beda dalam melakukan klaim atas wilayahnya, demikian   juga juga luas wilayah wilayah yang yang diklaim diklaimpun pun berbedaberbeda-beda beda satu sama sama lain dan terjadi terjadi tumpang tindih dalam klaim wilayah tersebut, ini yang menyebakan sengketa ini

menjadi sangat kompleks dan sulit untuk diselesaikan. Klaim berdasarkan history dilakukan oleh China, Vietnam dan Philipina, kemudian klaim berdasarkan pemberdayaan wilayah dilakukan oleh China, Vietnam, Philipina dan Malaysia, selanjutnya klaim yang didasarkan atas berlakunya UNCLOS dilakukan oleh Vietnam, Philipina, Malaysia dan Brunei Darussalam. Setiap Negara memliki beberapa dasar untuk mem-back up klaim yang dilakukannnya sehingga membuat sengketa ini menjadi bertambah komplek. Sengketa yang terjadi ini baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung akan mempengaruhi lingkungan strategis dari kawasan tersebut. Sengketa ini akan menaikkan suhu dan ketegangan dari Negara-negara yang terlibat, namun disisi lain sebenarnya sengketa ini juga memberikan kesempatan bagi Negara-negara yang berselisih untuk saling berkomunikasi dan bekerja sama dalam upaya mendapatkan solusi atau pemecahan yang terbaik dari sengketa yang terjadi.

Tulisan ini akan membahas kemungkinan-kemungkinan yang diakibatkan oleh sengketa-sengketa perbatasan yang ada di kawasan Asia Pasifik utamanya sengketa Spratly dan juga kemungkinan-kemungkinan untuk mencapai resolusi secara damai dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi.

SENGKETA PERBATASAN MARITIM DI ASIA PASIFIK

Pada bagian ini akan dibahas sengketa perbatasan maritim yang terjadi berdasarkan

kategori

untuk

memudahkan

bagi

kita

memahami

dan

mengidentifikasi factor-faktor yang menyebabkan sengketa tersebut terjadi.

LATAR BELAKANG SEJARAH Sebelum ada era kolonisasi oleh bangsa Eropa di kawasan Asia Pasifik, kawasan ini dikuasai oleh kerajaan-kerajaan yang tersebar di kawasan. Antar kerajaan-kerajaan ini tidak dibatasi oleh suatu batas wilayah yang  jelas satu sama lain secara administratif, melainkan lebih didasarkan atas saling pengertian satu sama lain, sehingga batas wilayah ini tidak tertuang

dalam bentuk garis batas, dokumen-dokumen resmi atau aturan-aturan yang mengatur untuk

menandakan batas

kekuasaan/wilayah

dari

kerajaan-kerajaan tersebut. Namun demikian hubungan antara kerajaankerajaan tersebut sangat unik, pengertian antara kerajaan demikian juga dengan rakyat dari kerajaan-kerajaan tersebut sudah dapat dimengerti secara mendalam oleh masing-masing pihak dan mereka saling menghormati dan memiliki tenggang rasa yang tinggi dalam hal ini. Rakyat di jaman itu hidup dalam kelompok-kelompok yang dikenal dengan istilah suku serta membentuk bahasa dan budaya diantara suku-suku tersebut. Dari budaya suku inilah kemudian berkembang cerita-cerita dan dokumen-dokumen yang bersifat tidak resmi mengenai kewilayahan dari masing-masing suku yang mana hal ini masih berlaku dan dipercayai hingga saat ini.

Pada abad pertengahan, kawasan Asia Pasifik menjadi daerah koloni dari bangsa-bangsa Eropa. Adanya kebutuhan untuk memdapatkan sumber  daya telah memaksa bangsa-bangsa Eropa untuk memperluas wilayah kekuasaan mereka sampai ke seluruh pelosok dunia. Mulai dari Portugis diikuti oleh Spanyol, Inggris dan Belanda datang ke Asia Pasifik dalam usahanya mendapatkan sumber daya, diawali dengan perdagangan dengan bangsa-bangsa di Asia Pasifik hingga akhirnya terjadi kompetisi antar bangsa-bangsa Eropa untuk mendapatkan sumber daya tersebut. Setelah kompetisi semakin meningkat, usaha ini semakin keras dilakukan oleh bangsa-bangsa Eropa sehingga mulailah timbulnya monopoli perdagangan sampai dengan akhirnya timbul klaim atas wilayah sebagai awal dimulainya era penjajahan oleh bangsa-bangsa Eropa terhadap bangsa-bangsa di Asia Pasifik. Klaim atas wilayah ini lebih didasari atas dasar kepentingan dan kebutuhan mereka atas sumber daya pada saat itu, dengan kata lain apabila di suatu wilayah mereka tidak memiliki kepentingan atau tidak ada ketertarikan pada wilayah tersebut, maka mereka tidak menarik garis di wilayah tersebut, sebagai contoh pulau

karang atau pulau-pulau kecil yang tidak memiliki sumber daya alam juga batas-batas wilayah laut, karena pada saat itu pencarian sumber daya lebih kepada sumber daya di darat berupa hasil-hasil perkebunan, sehingga batas-batas wilayah laut tidak begitu diperhatikan dan menjadi tidak jelas antara daeah-daerah koloni pada saat itu. Ketidak jelasin inilah yang kemudian menjadi masalah setelah berakhirnya era kolonisasi di kawasan ini. Negara-negara baru yang bermunculan setelah era kolonisasi berakhir mempunyai wawasan dan kepentingan yang berbeda dengan Negara-negara penjajah di waktu lalu. Kepentingan yang ada berkembang sejalan dengan perkembangan teknologi dan pengetahuan, tidak hanya sebatas kepentingan di darat namun berkembang ke wilayah laut sebagai bagian dari wilayah Negara berdaulat. Pulau-pulau yang tidak dimanfaatkan sewaktu jaman kolonisasi sekarang berubah menjadi kepentingan strategis bagi Negara-negara baru yang muncul. Status kepemilikan dari pulau-pulau yang tidak jelas pada masa kolonisasi dapat menjadi sumber persengketaan dari Negara-negara yang ada di kawasan ini.

Kolonisasi juga telah merusak kesepahaman/pengertian antara kerajaankerajaan yang pernah ada. Pembagian wilayah kekuasaan yang dibatasi oleh kepentingan dan dilaksanakan melalui perjanjian-perjanjian oleh bangsa-bangsa

penjajah

telah

merusak

system

yang

telah

ada

sebelumnya, dan hal ini juga menambah ketidak jelasan dari batas wilayah Negara-negara serta memancing timbulnya sengketa antara Negara-negara yang eksis di kawasan saat ini. Perjanjian-perjanjian antara bangsa-bangsa penjajah pada waktu lalu tidak dapat memberikan penjelasan yang jelas untuk menghindari terjadinya sengketa setelah mereka meninggalkan kawasan ini.

Pengusaan wilayah pada saat perang dunia juga menimbulkan asumsi bahwa suatu wilayah secara factual menjadi bagian wilayah suatu

Negara, dan ketika perang berakhir, pemenang perang mengembalikan kembali wilayah-wilayah kepada Negara-negara di wilayah ini sehingga dijadikan dasar bagi Negara-negar tersebut untuk mengklaim wilayah tersebut sebagia bagian dari wilayah mereka. Hal ini juga menambah ketidak jelasan batas wilayah dari Negara-negara di kawasan Asia Pasifik.

Dari uraian di atas dapat kita lihat dari latar belakang sejarah factor-faktor  yang dapat mempengaruhi terjadinya sengketa wilayah seperti system politik sebelum era kolonisasi, kemudian adanya dekolonisasi itu sendiri serta penggunaan wilayah era perang dunia yang semakin membuat ketidak jelasan batas-batas wilayah antar Negara sehingga memicu adanya sengketa wilayah antar Negara-negara tersebut.

UNCLOS

With the existence of UNCLOS, it makes the claimants have a legal basis to the territory that they already had claimed before base on the historical back ground and / or occupation. Furthermore it also causes new claimants. Based on UNCLOS, the right to explore and exploit resources becomes larger with the adding of territorial sea and ZEE. The adding territorial sea and ZEE sometimes make overlap one to another. UNCLOS doesn’t regulate specifically when it is happens, it should be solved by specific agreement among the countries bilaterally or regionally. It also makes the maritime disputes become even more complex than before.

FACTORS THAT INFLUANCE THE COUNTRIES TO APPLYING THEIR CLAIM

Historical back ground and UNCLOS has been explained above, how they can contribute to the maritime disputes that happens, however the main reason of disputes itself is lying on the national interest of each country

that involve in the disputes. Long time ago at the pre colonization era, maritime territorial disputes was not happen in Asia Pacific region, because the interest at that time was different. People at that time saw the sea as a free territory that can used by any other nation, both as a transportation media and as a media to explore natural resources such as fishing activities. The distribution of power that represented by territory was much more lying on the land, furthermore oil was not invented yet.

With the invention of oil and the advancement of technology that make possibility to explore and exploit more resources at the sea, the interest to sea as a source of resources become bigger. Furthermore, the advancement in maritime trade as well as the advancement of the ability to project power from the sea makes the control and authorization over  maritime territory become more important for one nation. The need of  space to maneuver in order to protect their own territory changes the view or consideration to the sea territory. Sea has seen not only as a transportation media but also as an important part of nation to get resources that needed for develop the economy, and furthermore sea as a media to defense. It makes the explanation how vital to control the sea territory for one nation, that also makes and force the countries to claim sea territory in vicinity and even to claim sea territory as far as possible to get a maximum space to maneuver for nation protection and maximum advantages of resources from the sea.

The situations that mention above result a maritime disputes, and make the disputes become very complex. One of the disputes that happen in Asia Pacific region is Spratly Maritime disputes. In this case the dispute become very complex since involving many countries as claimants, the bases from each country also different and supported by both historical and UNCLOS, the area that they claim are overlap one to another.

SPRATLY ‘S MARITIME TERRITORIAL DISPUTES; CURRENT SITUATION AND POSSIBILITY

The Spratly Islands consist of 100 - 230 islets, coral reefs and sea mounts.

1

Despite the fact that the archipelago is spread over 250,000 sq km of sea space, the total land mass of the Spratly Islands is a mere 5 sq km. The land is not arable, does not support permanent crops, and has no meadows, pastures or  forests. 2 Furthermore, the Spratly Islands have not been occupied by humans until recently.

The Spratly Islands are situated in the South China Sea, one of the largest continental shelves in the world. Typically, continental shelves are abundant in resources such as oil, natural gas, minerals, and seafood. One study conducted by China estimated oil reserves in the South China Sea to be larger than Kuwait's present reserves. 3 Oil and natural gas reserves in the Spratly region are estimated at 17.7 billion tons; Kuwait's reserves amount to 13 billion tons.

4

The

fishing zone around the South China Sea ranks fourth among the world's nineteen fishing zones in terms of total annual marine production. 5

The security situation in the South China Sea region is characterised by a multinational dispute over the territorial delimitation of the South China Sea. 1

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html; b. Kiras, James. "The South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute." 2 http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html. 3 Kiras, James. "The South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute." Peacekeeping & International Relations . Jul/Aug 1995: 3-4 4 http://snipe.ukc.ac.uk/international/dissert.dir/marsh.html. 5 http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm

There are overlapping claims between 5 states to the Spratly area. The lack of a firm security structure in the region makes the territorial dispute an explosive issue. On the other hand, the dispute provides the regional states in Southeast and East Asia with an incentive and opportunity to develop regional co-operative institutions. 6

Approximately 44 of the 51 small islands and reefs are claimed or occupied by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. The conflict is the result of  overlapping sovereignty claims to various Spratly Islands thought to possess substantial natural resources --chiefly oil, natural gas, and seafood.

Disputes have been propelled by an aggressive China, eager to meet growing energy demands that outstrip its supply capability. Overlapping claims resulted in several military incidents since 1974 and in several countries awarding foreign companies exploration rights in the same area of the South China Sea. Regional nation-states not directly involved in the Spratly disputes became concerned about regional stability and established a regional forum to discuss the peaceful resolution of the disputes. Sovereignty and exploration disputes were thought to be resolved with the drafting of ASEAN's 1992 declaration which committed members to resolve disputes peacefully and to consider joint exploration of the territory. Military aggression and exploration endeavors conducted by China since 1992, however, have brought into question the validity of the 1992 joint declaration and raises the question of what long-term, peaceful solution could prevent the region from erupting into a continuum of military incidents over  sovereignty rights to the natural resource-rich Spratly Islands. 7

6 7

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm

Claims to various islands of the archipelago began in the 1930s. Since the 1950s, the involved claimants have developed 29 oil fields and 4 gas fields in the Spratly region. 8

CHINA ‘S PERSPECTIVE

China's energy balance of trade has dramatically deteriorated since the early 1990s, causing China to become a net importer of oil for the first time in over 25 years. 9 Dependence on imported oil is likely to continue, given its low per capita energy consumption rate -- 40% of the world average. Unless China can find a way of coping with the high start-up costs,

waste

products

and

safety

concerns

affiliated

with

the

implementation of nuclear energy, oil will remain one of China's leading energy sources for the mid-to-long term. 10

Spratly offers oil to China. In 1992 China passed a special territorial sea and contiguous zone act to legalize its claims to the Spratly. Article 2 of  this legislation specifically identifies both the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos as Chinese territory. 11 China’s basis of claim to the Spratly is based on first discovery and historical claims.

Economic exploration endeavors appear to ignite the tenuous stability in the Spratly region. China granted oil exploration rights to foreign oil firms in territories with overlapping claims. In 1992, China National Offshore Oil Corp signed a joint exploration contract with Crestone Energy Corp. for a 8

"Territorial Disputes Simmer in Areas of South China Sea." Oil & Gas Journal. Vol 90 No 28. 13 Jul 1992 9 Calder, Kent E. "Asia's Empty Tank." Foreign Affairs Vol 75 No 2. Mar/Apr 1996 10 Calder, Kent E. "Asia's Empty Tank." Foreign Affairs Vol 75 No 2. Mar/Apr 1996 11 Christopher C. Joyner. The Spratly Islands Dispute in the South China Sea: Problems, Policies and Prospects for Diplomatic Accommodation

disputed area in the Spratly Islands. The Sino-U.S. contract infuriated Vietnam, who claimed the contract location is part of its exclusive economic zone. The situation was further aggravated in 1996, when Vietnam forged ahead with joint exploration plans in Spratly waters also claimed by China. Vietnam awarded exploration rights to Conoco in 1996, infuriating China. China claims that the area covered in the 1996 VietnamConoco deal overlaps with the block awarded to Crestone Energy by China in 1992. 12

The conflict is further exacerbated by foreign firms willing to undertake riskier oil development projects in Asia. The foreign oil firms are looking to profit from the current energy boom in Asia as well as to find replacement reserves for those in the United States and the North Sea where production approaches their peak. 13

Aside from granting foreign firms exploration rights in disputed waters and conducting military exercises in the Spratly area, China has also committed itself to the build-up of its navy and air force. The Financial  Times reported in August of 1996 that China planned to purchase

advanced navy radar from the British. This radar would improve warning signals to China of 'impending' attacks as well as facilitate naval task group deployment in the South China Sea. 14

Another interest of China in Spratly is fishing. Fishing remains an important economic activity for China, and these waters hold abundant supplies of numerous fish species. A recent study indicated that the Spratly area in the South China Sea, covering some 390,000 square

12 13 14

"Risk and Return." The Economist . 27 Apr 1996: 66 "Risk and Return." The Economist . 27 Apr 1996: 66 "China to Buy British Advanced Navy Radar." Financial Times . 6 Aug 1996: 1

kilometres, is one of the world’s richest fishing grounds, yielding up 7.5 tons of fish per square kilometre. 15

China need for stability and energy resources to sustain its economic growth and fulfill its national objective. The world is beginning to accept China’s role on the world stage. China’s economy is no longer and isolated economy, and is increasingly plugged into the global economy. China’s economy has grown, making her the world’s 3 rd largest economy.

Besides the resources, Spratly also offers an access for China to maintain their trading and security related. Access is necessary for trade flows which are crucial to China’s continued economic growth. Spratly also gives a space for China to occupy their naval forces to protect national security from a sea-based attack; Spratly is seen as a strategic asset by China.

VIETNAM ‘S PERSPECTIVE

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is one of the six nations that has laid claim to Spratly islands. Vietnam has been one of the most adamant in its claims and that has taken assertive steps in attempting to establish its control over the chain. Its willingness to go so far as to risk war with the mighty People's Republic of China (PRC) is evidence enough that the Spratly Islands are extremely important to Vietnam. 16

While Spratly Islands had been utilized for centuries by fishers from various countries, especially from Vietnam and China, the question remains as to which people first discovered the archipelago. Most agree that the Chinese were probably the first to find the islands, although 15

Christopher C. Joyner. The Spratly Islands Dispute in the South China Sea: Problems, Policies and Prospects for Diplomatic Accommodation 16 Todd C. Kelly, Vietnamese Claims to the Truong Sa Archipelago [Ed. Spratly Islands]

Vietnam contends that "not only the Chinese, but also the Vietnamese, the Malays, the Persians, the Arabs made voyages to and from the waters of  the Truong Sa (Spratly)," and that any of these groups could have "discovered" the chain. 17 Vietnam has also declared that "even if it is true that the Chinese discovered these archipelagos," Hanoi will continue to refute China's claim because discovery alone does "not constitute a legal basis for the Chinese claim that they have been under Chinese  jurisdiction." 18

Regardless of which nation actually discovered the islands, Vietnam maintains that it alone exercised the earliest authority and control over the Spratly Islands. Until the 17th century, no written documents existed to prove this assertion. The first mention of Vietnamese exercise of  sovereignty over the island chain appears in an annotated atlas written between 1630 and 1653. Although a 17th century document, textual analysis including "historical references and linguistic style" indicates that this early contact with the islands actually began some 200 years earlier, under the reign of King Le Than Tong [1460 - 1497]. 19

During the 17th century that the Truong Sa was placed under the administration of the Binh Son district within the Quang Nghia prefecture of Vietnam. Route Maps from the Capital to the Four Directions by Do Ba Cong Dao provides documentation of sovereignty over the Truong Sa archipelago, the first Vietnamese documentation of formal exercise of  authority over the Truong Sa. 20

17

The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos and International Law (Hanoi: Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1988). 18 The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos: Vietnamese Territories (Hanoi: Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1982). 19 Gerardo Martin C. Valero, Spratly Archipelago: Is the Question of Sovereignty Still Relevant? (Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, 1993). 20 The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos: Vietnamese Territories , 1 - 2.

Vietnam’s biggest threat in Spratly disputes context is China, which is its largest neighbor. However, it is also highly dependent on China for  imports and exports. Consequently, Vietnam is seeking to balance the power asymmetry with China by engaging China through multilateral organizations such as ASEAN.

Vietnam exports crude oil and imports refined petroleum. Having access to the Spratly’s oil deposits will serve to enhance its oil reserves, which will boost its economy.

Fisheries are an important part of the Vietnamese economy. Hence, having access to the fishing grounds in the Spratly will serve to enhance their fisheries industry, thereby contributing to their economic growth.

Control of Spratly will have some impact on SLOC access for Vietnam’s trade dependent economy. However, the impact for Vietnam is not as significant as compared to China’s. Due to Vietnam’s long coast-line facing the South China Sea, it is in her interest to ensure that the SLOCs remain accessible and that the islands are not dominated by a less than friendly power.

Vietnam wants stability for continued economic growth. Hence, she does not want the disputes to cause instability, which will affect her economic growth. However, she also doesn’t want to see China dominating, especially off Vietnam’s coast. Vietnam does not want to antagonize China due to its economic dependence on China. Hence, Vietnam is unlikely to allow the disputes to affect bilateral ties with China.

Vietnam is a credible naval power, and is the 2 nd largest naval power  amongst the claimants. However, China’s navy is much larger, which makes it unlikely for Vietnam to pursue a military solution to the disputes.

It is in Vietnam’s interests to keep the disputes issue alive. This will serve register their position that the issue is not resolved and they do not accept the current situation. This may be useful in the future to further press their  claims when conditions are more favorable. 21

Vietnam is trying to

strengthen her claims by selectively working with other claimants to countervail China’s influence. Hence, Vietnam prefers to work through ASEAN and other international forums to balance China’s influence.

PHILIPINA, BRUNEI AND MALAYSIA

Philippines base their claims of sovereignty over the Spratly on the issues of  r es nullius and geography. Philippines contend Kalayaan was res nullius as there was no effective sovereignty over the islands until the

nineteen thirties when France and then Japan acquired the islands. Philippine claim to Kalayaan on geographical bases can be summarized using the assertion that Kalayaan is distinct from other island groups in the South China Sea. 22

A second argument used by the Philippines regarding their geographical claim over the Spratly is that all the islands claimed by the Philippines lie within their archipelagic baselines, the only claimant who can make such a statement. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stated that a coastal state could claim two hundred nautical miles of jurisdiction beyond its land boundaries. It is perhaps telling that while the Philippines is a signatory to UNCLOS, the PRC and Vietnam are not. The Philippines also argue, under Law of the Sea provisions, that the PRC cannot extend its baseline claims to the Spratly because the PRC is not an archipelagic state. Whether this argument (or any other used by the 21

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_mysvnm_33_2 009.htm 22 http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spratly-islands/philippine-claims on the spratly islands.html

Philippines) would hold up in court is debatable but possibly moot, as the PRC and Vietnam seem unwilling to legally substantiate their claims and have rejected Philippine challenges to take the dispute to the World  Maritime Tribunal in Hamburg.23

Brunei and Malaysia base their claims of sovereignty over the Spratly purely on UNCLOS. Due to low military capability compare to the two-first claimants, the three-latter claimants have so far kept quiet. However they keep trying to open their chances and take any advantages when there is any, such as Philippines where they call China as a big brother, they keep their chance remain open to gain advantages from their relation with China.

THE POSSIBLITY OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Due to demand for energy security, there will be a time dimension as the demand for energy increases over time. Hence, the pressure for exploration to determine oil and gas deposits will increase on the claimants, particularly when oil price increases.

The growing importance of SLOCs for all nations to gain access to import/export markets may lead to a situation where no one country is allowed to dominate the Spratly. Particularly for countries that are traditionally not transparent about their  intentions.

Given the complex overlapping claims on different basis by the various claimants, the Spratly disputes might not be resolved solely on one basis alone, for example using historical background only or UNCLOS only. Hence, there is 23

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spratly-islands/philippine-claims on the spratly

islands.html

currently no established basis or framework for resolution of the Spratly disputes. Thus, there is a need for a different approach to conflict resolution.

Considering the complexity of the issue, it is better to have conflict prevention rather than seek a permanent resolution, since none of the claimants are likely to compromise their sovereignty claims.

With the rise of China, the power asymmetry between the claimants will increasingly be skewed in favor of China. Being the biggest player; China’s actions would determine the potential for inter-state conflicts in the region. Whether act as an aggressor by using military power, or maintain status quo while she can still enjoy and take an advantages of current strategic environment in South China Sea, or establish cooperative approach to gain respect in the region and to be seen as a responsible international player. For the last option, China might leverage on deepening China – ASEAN relation or use her economy might to influence the other claimants to play in China’s way.

As the volume of world trade increases, the cost for going to conflict amongst the claimants increases due to the disruption to world trade that such conflicts will cause. Hence, it is in the claimants’ interests to avoid conflict and seek peaceful resolution. More and more countries are looking towards a common international framework to resolve disputes rather than resort to force. Increasingly, countries are seeking to resolve disputes amicably. International norms increasingly regulate how nations conduct their relations with other countries.

From this, we can deliver three possibilities path of conflict resolution in the context of Spratly maritime disputes. First, China takes all the territory using its power to force other claimants to give up on the disputes, consider the other  claimants will not try to contend China by exercising their military power, due to the powerless military power compare to China as well as the need of stability and dependence to China in order to keep and maintain their economic growing.

Second path is maintaining status quo over the disputes. The situation will remain the same; it can be seen as conflict prevention rather than conflict resolution, but it still leaves the potential oil problem unclear. The last path is establishing agreement on division of economic gains. This can be achieved if  each claimant can decline the nationalism. The strong relationship between China and ASEAN could be used as an important tool.

CONCLUSION

Maritime territorial disputes in Asia Pacific region were aroused as a result of  national interest. In order to achieve their interest, states are using some different reasons as base for their claim. The overlap claim creates the disputes over the region and with the various basis that are used by claimant, make the dispute become very complex. The dispute that happens also creates tension among the claimants and also influences other countries which also need stability in the region to conduct maritime trade. On the other hand it is also given an open chance to establish cooperation among the countries in the region.

Current geo political within the region also lead the claimant in their effort to achieve conflict resolution over the disputes. The need of stability within the region, inter dependant in order to maintain economic growth as well as power  comparison among the claimant have form certain paths to the conflict resolution. In this case, a hundred percents of satisfaction of each claimant might not be achieved; however there is a possibility where peace full agreement might be achieved in solving the disputes in Asia Pacific region.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html; b. Kiras, James. "The

South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute." 2.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html.

3.

Kiras, James. "The South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute."

Peacekeeping & International Relations. Jul/Aug 1995: 3-4

4.

http://snipe.ukc.ac.uk/international/dissert.dir/marsh.html.

5.

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm

6.

“Territorial Disputes Simmer in Areas of South China Sea." Oil & Gas

Journal . Vol 90 No 28. 13 Jul 1992

7.

Calder, Kent E. "Asia's Empty Tank." Foreign Affairs Vol 75 No 2. Mar/Apr 

1996 8.

Christopher C. Joyner. The Spratly Islands Dispute in the South China

Sea: Problems, Policies and Prospects for Diplomatic Accommodation 9.

"Risk and Return." The Economist . 27 Apr 1996: 66

10.

"China to Buy British Advanced Navy Radar." Financial Times. 6 Aug

1996: 1 11.

Todd C. Kelly, Vietnamese Claims to the Truong Sa Archipelago [Ed.

Spratly Islands] 12.

The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos and International Law  (Hanoi:

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1988).

13.

Gerardo Martin C. Valero, Spratly Archipelago: Is the Question of 

Sovereignty Still Relevant?  (Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International

Legal Studies, 1993). 14.

The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos: Vietnamese Territories , 1 - 2.

15.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcsnew/submissionsfiles/submission mysvnm

33 2009.htm 16

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spratly-islands/philippine-claims

spratly islands.html

on the