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

Yasintha Selly Rossiana

Abstract


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.

Keywords


South China Sea, Code of Conduct, Dispute settlement, Maritime border

Full Text:

PDF

References


Amry, Sacha. 2015. “An Analysis of the South China Sea Dispute: Focusing on the Assessment of the Impact of Possible Solutions on the Economies of the Region.” The City University of New York.

Boston Global Forum. 2015. “Chinese Disputes in the South China Sea: Risks and Solutions for the Asia-Pacific A Boston Global Forum Report.”

Chang, Felix K. 2020. “Uncertain Prospects: South China Sea Code of Conduct Negotiations - Foreign Policy Research Institute.” Foreign Policy Research Institute. Retrieved January 23, 2022 (https://www.fpri.org/article/2020/10/uncertain-prospects-south-china-sea-code-of-conduct-negotiations/).

Congressional Research Service. 2021. “China Primer: South China Sea Disputes.”

Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Canada. 2015. “People’s Daily: China’s Sovereignty over South China Sea Islands Brooks No Denial.” Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Canada 1–2. Retrieved January 23, 2022 (http://ca.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/cpot/201512/t20151223_4879819.htm).

Fravel, M. Taylor. 2011. “China’s Strategy in the South China Sea.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 33(3):292–319. doi: 10.1355/cs33-3b.

Harahap, Syaiful W. 2021. “Konflik Natuna , China Tidak.” Tagar.Id 3–5. Retrieved January 23, 2022 (https://www.tagar.id/konflik-natuna-china-tidak-mengakui-zee-indonesia).

Haryanto, Agus, and Arry Bainus. 2017. “Implikasi Declaration of Conduct Laut Tiongkok Selatan Tahun 2002 Terhadap Proses Penyelesaian Sengketa.” Jurnal Media Hukum 24(1):88–95. doi: 10.18196/jmh.2017.0093.88-95.

Junfeng, Gu. n.d. “Dispute Resolution in the South China Sea ‘Joint Development’ to ‘Joint Protection.’”

Kusuma, Winanda, A. Cery Kurnia, and Rio Armanda Agustian. 2021. “South China Sea: Conflict, Challenge, and Solution.” Lampung Journal of International Law 3(1):51–62. doi: 10.25041/lajil.v3i1.2266.

Law, International. 2015. “A Fair and Effective Code of Conduct for the South China Sea.” Center for Strategic and International Studies 1–5. Retrieved January 23, 2022 (https://amti.csis.org/a-fair-and-effective-code-of-conduct-for-the-south-china-sea/).

Nugroho, Mohammad Alvian Adi, and M. Miftahul Hikam. 2020. “South China Sea Claim Dispute Settlement Between ASEAN and China.” Trunojoyo Lawa Review 2(1):1–11.

Perwita, Anak Agung Banyu. 2022. “Defense Diplomacy for Confidence Building Measures.”

Souza, Jaymi-lyn, Nicholas Clark, Noah Aurelio, and Timothy Jarvis. 2018. “South China Sea: Conflict Solution.”

Tong, Linh. 2016. “Seeking a Solution to the South China Sea Disputes.”

Widian, Rizky, and Arimadona. 2018. “Cooperation & Security Dilemma in the South China Sea: Conflict Management & the Increasing of China’s Power.” Jurnal Global Strategis 12(2):91. DOI: 10.20473/jgs.12.2.2018.91-106.

Wiranto, Surya, Hikmahanto Juwana, Sobar Sutisna, and Kresno Buntoro. 2015. “The Disputes of South China Sea From International Law Perspective.” The Southeast Asia Law Journal 1(1):1. doi: 10.31479/salj.v1i1.2.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.33172/jdp.v8i1.884

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Ethics in Publishing

Publishing ethics refers to COPE (Commitee on Publication Ethics) and Regulation of the Head of LIPI Number 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications.

This statement outlines the ethical behavior expected of all parties. The parties are related and obedient in their respective positions and roles: authors, editorial board, peer reviewers, and publishers, who are involved in publishing articles in this journal.

Author
Authors create articles. Authors should read the policies that apply to their contributions and the author's guidelines. Once a submission has reached the review stage, authors are not allowed to withdraw it. The author accepts editorial decisions voluntarily.

Editorial Board
The editor consists of the chief editor and staff as a unit. Editors grade manuscripts on intellectual merit alone, regardless of the author's rank, title, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy. Corresponding authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and publishers, as appropriate, are the only parties to whom any editor and editorial staff may divulge information about manuscripts that have been submitted. The editor chooses which article to publish. When reaching a choice, the editor can consult with other editors or reviewers.

Peer Reviewers

Peer review provides an assessment of the articles submitted by the editor. The reviewer's assessment results assist the editor in editing the assessment and can also help the author improve the article through the editorial communication with the author. Any selected reviewer who believes they lack the skills necessary to evaluate a manuscript or realizes that doing so quickly is impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process. The review must be carried out impartially. It would be inappropriate to criticize the author personally. Referees must clearly state their position and provide evidence to support them. Any manuscript sent to you for review should be treated with confidentiality. They cannot be discussed or shown to anyone without the editor's permission. Reviewers must indicate related published work that the author still needs to cite. Suitable quotations must support any claim that specific observations, deductions, or arguments have been recorded. Any significant overlap or resemblance between the manuscript under consideration and other published material of which the reviewer has direct knowledge must be communicated to the editor.

 

Publisher
The publisher is the institution that publishes the journal. Universitas Pertahanan Press under the Universitas Pertahanan Republik Indonesia, publisher of this Journal of Defense Diplomacy. Moral and ethical obligations as publishers are aware of and take their duties and responsibilities seriously during and throughout the publication process. For publishing journals, publishers work closely with editorial boards to facilitate communication with other journals and publishers.


Alamat Dewan Redaksi:
Alamat: Jl. Salemba Raya No.14, RT.3/RW.6, Kenari, Kec. Senen,
Kota Jakarta Pusat, Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta 10430
Email: pertahanandiplomasi@gmail.com
Website: http://jurnalprodi.idu.ac.id/index.php/DP


Creative Commons License
Jurnal Diplomasi Pertahanan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


 View My StatCounter