The South China Sea Dispute: Code of Conduct Implementation as the Dispute Settlement

After the end of World War II, China has claimed the area in South China Sea as its territory based on its historical background, or so-called the nine-dash line. This China’s unilateral accusation naturally reap many negative responses from countries in the area because it is consider as theirs. However, China who did not ratify UNCLOS 1982 as the international law stick to its own rules. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the effectiveness of Code of Conduct offered by ASEAN as the dispute settlement of this border issue. In an attempt to present the results, author collected primary and secondary data from official document and credible literature which are accessible on the internet such as journal and article website. The results of this study found that dispute resolution through the Code of Conduct still encounters obstacles, therefore it is necessary to do alternative solutions such as bilateral negotiations between the disputing parties.

objectives. Determining a fair solution for maritime boundary delimitation necessitates considering political, strategic, and historical issues. The considerations listed above are issues that conflicting countries must address in order to protect their rights in the South China Sea (Kusuma et al. 2021:53). As a country that led this issue to be brought up to the surface, China is pursuing numerous of interest through her claims regarding the territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the area of South China Sea. The strategic power of the Spartlys was stated by former M. Taylor Fravel PLAN Commander Admiral Liu Huaqing. According to his observation, "whoever controls the Spratlys will reap huge economic and military benefits" (Fravel 2011:295).
This conflict rooted at the China's so-called nine-dash line claim over the waters area, which was stated firmly by the government. The map of the nine-dash line area that China unilaterally claims covers about 90% of the 3.5 million square kilometers of waters in the South China Sea (Harahap 2021). According to China, this accusation is based on its basic historical facts, and so its sovereignty over the area brooks no denial (  International law is ineffective in changing the conduct of superpowers. There is a reason why the system has long been seen as laws for lesser states only; superpowers such as China, the United States, Russia, or the United Kingdom would never be able to observe the rules if they worked against their national interests. After watching the tribunal's decision's limited influence on China, it is clear that future legal proceedings from Vietnam or any other claimant will accomplish no more practical consequence (Tong 2016).
Finally, China and the claimants are locked in a self-perpetuating circle. The more significant state will continue to act as it pleases, and the lesser states may only suffer as Jurnal Diplomasi Pertahanan, Volume 8, Nomor 1, 2022 E-ISSN 2746-8496 27 much as they must. As a regional hegemon, China will continue to be aggressive, and the other claims, no matter how little, will never give up their territorial integrity. This is a chaotic asymmetric relationship since the major state (China) does not respect the autonomy of the smaller states, and the smaller nations (the other claimants) appear to be aggressors against the larger's leadership.
The discussions on a South China Sea code of conduct were designed to demonstrate to China the worth of the "ASEAN Way" and create more consensus throughout Southeast Asia. However, reality has fallen short of aspirations. China has continued to harass Malaysian and Vietnamese fishing and energy research vessels, essentially barring the Philippines' access to Scarborough Shoal, and has even begun to creep into Indonesia's Natuna Island exclusive economic zone (Chang 2020). Meanwhile, the lack of collaboration within Southeast Asia may have strengthened China's long-held tendency to deal with the other claimants individually rather than through a multilateral body.
Certainly, ASEAN has not brought China any closer to its point of view. Considering the weakness of non-binding international law, therefore, a bilateral approach is needed for each country to increase its positive bargaining with China to demand it to withdraw from the claims it has made over the South China Sea.

Conclusion
ASEAN and China should work harder to enhance the principles of a law-based order In the meantime, Code of Conduct remains the best solution for the disputing parties to obey in managing the conflict in the South China Sea in the ASEAN way. However, to overcome the obstacles that occur in the middle of its implementation, further handling is needed to maintain the stability in the region and build confidence among disputing parties. This is due to the nature of the Code of Conduct which is not legally binding, so China does not want to enforce it. And for the alternative solution, since settlement at the multilateral level seems rather ineffective, bilateral negotiations among claimant states and China need to be taken into account. This is because each country has different specific bargaining position towards China, so that the consideration offered on the negotiation table (or maybe water surface) would be different.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Allah SWT for His blessings and grace so that the completion of this paper could happen, and also to the author's parents who always give motivation and support in any circumstances.