Daily Times

‘Anarchy’ has remained one of the most favourite terms for International Relations scholarship to define international relations and politics. Nevertheless, International Law (ranging from Law of the Sea to Diplomatic Immunity) plays an important role in keeping states away from war and conflict. However, some portions of international law especially the Law of the Sea still need changes, otherwise the complexity of this law can lead to another great power conflict in future.

The fathers of the modern Law of the Sea tried to clarify the limits and scope of every sovereign actor vis-à-vis its respective sovereignty over sea waters. To a large extent, they remained successful in preventing conflicts between states. However, in recent times, the claims on the sea and islands under current international law have become more complex to be accommodated than land claims. The 1984 UN Conference on the Law of the Sea has made these problems even more complex by giving jurisdiction to the states over 200 nautical miles from their respective sea shores. In fact, it has become a herculean task to define the sovereignty of all regional actors over sea water in some regions such as the Asia-Pacific.

One of the most important factors in this regard is globalisation of trade, which has increased the value of sea-lanes in recent times. Smaller cities and states like Dubai, Singapore and Hong Kong have become the hub of global business and trade because of their ports. And their importance is likely to increase with the passage of time. This facet of the modern era is acceptable and praiseworthy. What about the other facet?

The other facet is gloomy and problematic, and it can impel the great powers to face each other for a few nautical miles of sea. Even larger states such as China and Japan are ready to clash with each other for small islands in the East China Sea. The importance of this sea has been increased so much in the current era that almost half of the global trade is conducted through the East and South China seas. In addition, the sea bed is full of hydrocarbon resources, which both resource-hungry states certainly do not want to forgo. In this case, any conflict between the two Asian tigers can cause a hindrance in trade for the rest of the smaller states in the region.

Tensions between China and Japan have increased since 2012, though this issue broke out in 2010. These uninhabited islands have remained under the control of the US after WWII till the early 1970s, the time of renewal of MTS between the US and Japan. Here one thing is noteworthy that these islands were not contested so long as they were under the control of the US. However, China and Taiwan started contesting Japan’s sovereignty over these islands following the American decision to return the islands to Japan.

Until the late 2000s, this issue was a minor irritant in the mutual relationship. But the recent surveys of the UN (which showed that this sea is rich in hydrocarbons) have enhanced the intensity of the conflict. In addition, China’s growing military strength and assertiveness have also raised concerns among the Japanese. Collectively, all these developments have given rise to nationalistic feelings in Japan and China.

The recent conflict on the sea has dramatically increased when a Chinese fishing trawler pushed back two Japanese Coast Guard vessels near the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Though the conflict was calmed at that time, yet it erupted again in mid-2012. The outbreak of tensions led to radical changes in Japan’s official position on the islands when the Japanese premier announced his government’s decision to purchase the Senkaku. The Japanese decision resulted in widespread anti-Japan protests inside China, which inflicted damage on the business of the Japanese companies in China. China, in response, diminished the intensity of the protests but enhanced the presence of its forces near the islands. As a reaction to the Chinese force posture, the JCG has also increased patrols in the area.

Following the events of September 2012, the two militaries became directly involved in the conflict. A Chinese reconnaissance aircraft entered Japan’s airspace in December and, in response, two aircraft of Japan’s Air Self-Defence Force followed the Chinese aircraft but they were too late. Later, in January 2013, Japan again protested an alleged Chinese intrusion into Japan’s airspace. But China refused to take responsibility by naming it ‘an individual’s action’. Looking at the circumstances, there are three probabilities (accidental use, miscalculation of the leadership and any attempt to capture territory), which can threaten stability in the region.

Accidental use of force has always been a source of threat to peace. Despite internationalisation of this issue, the potential danger continuously persists. For instance, if a Chinese captain can enter into Japanese territory without permission of the relevant authorities, he can do the same in future. And certainly, the Japanese will not always be late. This unintended use of force can invite any third party (perhaps the US) into the conflict. Any third party will certainly have its own interests in the conflict and region. Secondly, Tokyo’s major ally, Washington, has already increased the number of its troops in and around Japan after the announcement of the Asia pivot. Former American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once stated that “the US would not accept any unilateral attempt to wrest control of the islands”. However, we still remember the ‘tests of commitment’ of the Cold War. China may test the US commitment to defend Japan in future. On the other hand, Japan can also miscalculate the US’s commitment. There is another possibility that any of the parties in the conflict might opt for establishment of control through using force, though it seems less probable just yet. However, rising nationalism and domestic pressure may constrain the military or political leadership to take an unexpected decision.

Several world leaders have already asserted that this century is the ‘Asian Century’, and the Asia-Pacific is one of the most important regions in Asia. Peace and stability are essential for economic development of the people in this region. In order to assure peace and economic wellbeing of the people, the UN should conduct a thorough review of the Law of the Sea so that this issue can be solved without endangering the people.

The writer is a visiting scholar at Ball State University, USA, and can be reached at shoaibm37@yahoo.com