Sovereignty regimes in the South China Sea: assessing contemporary Sino-US relations

Abstract

a politics and international studies (spais), Faculty of social sciences and Law, school of sociology, university of Bristol, Bristol, uK; b department of Geography, university of california, Los angeles, ca, usa ABSTRACT This article outlines how a materialist understanding of foreign policy predicated on contrasting sovereignty regimes might be applied to current conflicts between China and the United States and its allies in the South China Sea. A stark divergence between liberal and realist commentary, policy prescriptions, and policy practices has emerged in both China and the United States. We provide a critical overview of the dispute before arguing that these disparities are, at root, symptoms of a material contradiction between the benefits and risks of economic interdependence and territorial expansionism. These symptoms are consequently founded upon a realworld paradox, refracted through fundamentally different modalities of practicing state sovereignty, and will ultimately be resolved politically. An intensification of interstate rivalry is fast becoming the outcome of a period of unprecedented economic interconnectedness, to which these variegated sovereignty regimes are contributing.

The Hegemony’s Contest in the South China Sea

“…In this sense, Beijing asserts its claim to Yongxing Island, presenting the social and economic dynamics as proof of its human sustainability (Scobell, 2018). However, as the islands' sustainability was supported by air or sea supply rather than self-support, the court ruled that the Chinese claims did not meet legal requirements (Rolf & Agnew, 2016). Furthermore, the court ruled that the islands are mere rocks with very low ground elevations, which represent different rights for not being considered an island.…”

“…As a result, approximately 3,200 acres were reclaimed from various Spratly Isles reefs in 2016 (Levy & Thompson, 2010). Correspondingly, regional instability has increased, giving rise to intense negotiations between Washington and Beijing (Rolf & Agnew, 2016). However, without relevant impediments, China proceeded with the construction of military installations in claimed territories (Scobell, 2018).…”

Estratégia Norte-Americana Para O Desenvolvimento De Inteligência Artificial Militar: Um Horizonte De Curto Prazo (2020-2030)

“…In a projection made by the HSBC bank, in the year 2030, the Chinese GDP will surpass the American (O Globo 2018). Amid economic growth, the country developed technologically and modernized its armed forces, projecting power in the Indo-Pacific region, creating bases to ensure control of the South China Sea, where it disputes territories with the Philippines, Vietnam, and Singapore (Rolf and Agnew 2016). On the other hand, it projects its influence through the One Belt One Road project (OBOR), the "new silk route", for the regions of Central Asia and Southeast Asia (Chan 2017).…”

Towards a Confucian geopolitics

“…Finally, realist geopolitics – which focuses on politicians’ ambitions for national security as a fundamental factor, triggering international politics (Dalby, 2013) – has also been put forward as an explanation for Chinese geopolitics. Realist thinking is predominantly informed by geo-security (e.g., Overholt, 2007; Liu, 2009; Scott, 2008) and geo-economy (e.g., Rolf and Agnew, 2016; Zhang, 2009; Zeng et al, 2015). These approaches reveal a common belief that the security of China’s territorial and economic interests is the core driver of Chinese geopolitics.…”