Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Chinese Political Science
Erschienen in: Journal of Chinese Political Science 2/2017

17.03.2017 | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Taiwan, the South China Sea Dispute, and the 2016 Arbitration Decision

verfasst von: Wei-chin Lee

Erschienen in: Journal of Chinese Political Science | Ausgabe 2/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The South China Sea (SCS) has been an area of contention among strong powers and weak states since the release of the 1968 UN geological survey indicating this region’s rich resource potential. The disputes among China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines have made the US concerned about regional peace and stability, though the US has no territorial claims there. At the center of this drama has been China’s assertive pose and the counter-moves of the US. Taiwan has also played a crucial role; nevertheless, most studies pay little attention to the crucial role it has played in the SCS disputes. This study explores what role Taiwan has played in the game of the SCS maritime dispute. After a brief introduction to the SCS dispute, this study examines Taiwan’s consideration and explores its policy variation between the former Ma Ying-jeou government and the new Tsai Ing-wen government after May 2016.
Vorheriger Artikel The South China Sea Arbitration and Taiwan’s Claim: Legal and Political Implications
Nächster Artikel U.S. International Oceans Law and Policy Interests in the South China Sea Arbitration: Implications for the U.S. Administration in the South China Sea and Elsewhere

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
See [54] for details.
 
2
Please see [2: 171–185] for further elaboration.
 
3
For examples, please see [75].
 
Literatur
1.
2.
UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. 1969. Geographic structure and some water characteristics of the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. Technical Bulletin 2: 3–43. The report was based on a survey conducted by K. O. Emery and others in 1968.
3.
4.
Houssain, Kamrul. 2013. The UNCLOS and the US-China hegemonic competition over the South China Sea. Journal of East Asia and International Law 6 (1): 107–133.
5.
Wang, Gungwu. 2007. The nanhai trade: a study of the early history of Chinese trade in the South China Sea. In In Southeast Asia-China Interactions, selected and introduced by Geoff Wade with a forward by Wang Gungwu, reprint of articles from the Journal of The Malaysian Branch, Royal Asiatic Society. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: The Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
6.
Hou, Kuang-Hao. 2014. The meaning of the ocean of the state in contemporary Taiwan since 1949: understanding state perception of the ocean through a historical approach. Australian Approach of Maritime and Ocean Affairs 6 (4): 191–206.
7.
Jiang Xun and Zhang Weiran, 2014. Gu Ditu Zhengming Diaodao nanhai zhuquan (ancient maps prove sovereign rights over the Diaoyu Islands and South China Sea), Yazhou Zhoukan (Asian weekly), 28(33), August 24.
8.
Li Guoqiang, 2011. Zhongguo Nanhai Jiangyu Xingcheng de Lishi Kaocha” (A historical survey of the formation of China’s maritime boundary of the Southern Sea), Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Bao (Chinese Social Sciences Today), no. 199, posted on June 23. <sspress.​cass.​cn/​news/​22486.​htm>. Accessed Nov. 20, 2016.
9.
10.
Zou, Keyuan. 2005. Law of the sea in East Asia: issues and prospects. New York: Routledge.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Zou, Keyuan. 1999. Scarborough reef: a new flashpoint in Sino-Philippine relations? IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin 7 (2): 71–81.
16.
Yahuda, Michael. 2011. The international politics of the Asia-Pacific. New York: Routledge.
17.
Valencia, Mark J. 1995. China and the South China Sea disputes: Conflicting claims and potential solutions in the South China Sea. Adelphi Paper No. 298.
18.
19.
Colson, David, and Robert Smith, eds. 2005. International maritime boundaries. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Pub., 2005, co-publication with the American Society of International Law, Vol. 5.
20.
Smith, Robert W. 2010. Maritime delimitation in the South China Sea: Potentiality and challenges. Ocean Development and International Law 41 (3): 214–236.CrossRef
21.
Amer, Ramses. 2015. The South China Sea: achievements and challenges to dispute management. Asian Survey 55 (3): 618–639.CrossRef
22.
Yu, Mincai. 2014. China’s responses to the compulsory arbitration on the South China Sea dispute: legal effects and policy options. Ocean Development and International Law 45 (1): 1–16.CrossRef
23.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1940. Positivism, functionalism, and international law. American Journal of International Law 34 (2): 260–284.CrossRef
24.
Crawford, James. 2008. 2008. Brownlie’s principles of public international law. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
Hahn, Michael. 2008. Options for dispute settlement. In Peace in Northeast Asia: resolving Japan’s territorial and maritime disputes with China, Korea and the Russian Federation, ed. Thomas J. Schoenbaum, 65–82. Northampton: Edward Elgar Pub.CrossRef
26.
Dzurek, Daniel J. 1996. The Spratly Islands dispute: Who’s on first. Maritime Briefing 2(1). Edited by Clive Schofield. International Boundaries Research Unit, Department of Geography, Univeristy of Durham, UK.
27.
Hu, Nien-Tsu Alfred. 2010. South China Sea: troubled waters or a sea of opportunity? Ocean Development and International Law 41 (3): 203–213.CrossRef
28.
Shi, Xiujuan. 2016. Sheqi ‘U Xing Xian’ ‘Guyou’ Jiangyu, Xing Zhengfu Fangxiu Nanhai Zhuquan Lunshu, Pieqing yu Zhongguo Lianshou” (Abandon “U-Shape line,” “inherent” territory, new government reconstructed the discourse of South China Sea sovereignty, ensure its non-cooperation with China), Fengchuan Mei (Storm Media), July 10. <www.​storm.​mg/​article/​140113>. Accessed July 10, 2016.
29.
Peng, Guangqian. 2010. China’s maritime rights and interests. In Military Activities in the EEZ, ed. Peter Dutton. Newport, RI: Naval War College. Center for Naval Warfare Studies, China Maritime Study No. 7.
30.
Lee, Lai-To. 1999. China and the South China Sea dialogues. Westport: Praeger.
31.
Buzan, Barry. 2007. People, states and fear: an agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era. Wivenhoe Park: ECPR Press.
32.
Balzacq, Thierry. 2005. The three faces of securitization: political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations 11 (2): 171–201.CrossRef
33.
Balzacq, Thierry. 2010. Constructivism and securitization studies. In The Routledge handbooks of security studies, ed. M.D. Cavelty and V. Maure, 56–72. Abington: Routledge.
34.
Emmers, Ralf. 2016. Securitization. In Contemporary security studies, ed. Alan Collins, 168–181. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
McSweeney, Bill. 1996. Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen school. Review of International Studies 22 (1): 81–93.CrossRef
36.
Bialasicwicz, Luiza, David Campbell, Stuart Elden, Stephen Graham, Alex Jeffrey, and Alison J. Williams. 2007. Performing security: the imaginative geographies of current US strategy. Political Geography 26 (4): 405–422.CrossRef
37.
Campbell, David. 1992. Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
38.
Toft, Monica Duffy. 2003. The geography of ethnic violence: identity, interests, and the indivisibility of territory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
Williams, Michael C. 2003. Words, images, enemies: securitization and international politics. International Studies Quarterly 47 (4): 511–531.CrossRef
40.
41.
42.
43.
US Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense. 2016. Annual report to Congress: Military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China 2015. May. RefID: D-117FA69.
44.
Beech, Hannah. 2016. Inside the international contest over the most important waterway in the world. Time. June, 6.
45.
46.
47.
Hong, Nang. 2012. UNCLOS and ocean dispute settlement: law and politics in the South China Sea. New York: Routledge.
48.
Mattes, Michaela. 2012. Reputation, symmetry, and alliance design. International Organization 66 (4): 679–707.CrossRef
49.
50.
51.
Beckman, Robert. 2013. The UN convention on the law of the sea and the maritime disputes in the South China Sea. American Journal of International Law. 107 (1): 142–163.CrossRef
52.
Fravel, M. Taylor. 2011. China’s strategy in the South China Sea. Contemporary Southeast Asia 33 (3): 292–319.CrossRef
53.
54.
Wang, Kuan-hsiung. 2010. The ROC’s maritime claims and practices with special reference to the South China Sea. Ocean Development and International Law 41 (3): 237–252.CrossRef
55.
56.
57.
Lin, Cheng-yi. 2016. Obama’s South China Sea policy: China’s response and implications for Taiwan (in Chinese). Soochow Journal of Political Science 34 (1): 1–80.
58.
59.
60.
Helmersen, Sondre Torp. 2013. Evolutive treaty interpretation: legality, semantics and distinctions. European Journal of Legal Studies 6 (1): 127–148.
61.
D’Amato, Anthony. 1992. International law, intertemporal problems. In Encyclopedia of public international law 1992: 1234–1236.
62.
Kotzur, Markus. 2008. Intertemporal law. The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. April. <opil.ouplaw.com>.
63.
Higgins, Rosalyn. 1996. Some observations of the inter-temporal rule in international law. In Theory of international law at the threshold of the 21st century, ed. Jerzy Makarczyk, 173–181. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
64.
65.
Holmes, James R. 2014. Strategic features of the South China Sea. Naval War College Review 67 (2): 30–51.
66.
67.
68.
69.
Friedrich, Kratochwil, Paul Rohrlich, and Harpreet Mahajan. 1985. Peace and disputed sovereignty: reflections on conflict over territory. Lanham: University Press of America.
70.
Bederman, David J., and Chiméne I. Keitner. 2016. International law frameworks. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.
71.
Biersteker, Thomas J. 2002. State, sovereignty and territory (chapter 8). In Handbook of international relations, ed. Walter Carisnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 157–176. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRef
72.
Camilleri, Joseph A. 1990. Rethinking sovereignty in a shrinking, fragmented world. In Contending sovereignties—redefining political community, ed. R.B.J. Walker and Saul H. Mendlovitz, 3–44. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
73.
Ruggie, John Gerald. 1983. Continuity and transformation in the world polity: toward a neorealist synthesis (a review of Theory of international Politics by Kenneth N. Waltz). World Politics 35 (2): 261–285.CrossRef
74.
Bull, Hedley. 1977. The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRef
75.
Lee, Wei-chin. 2013. Sailing the ocean blue: Taiwan as a fishing entity in regional fisheries management organizations. Conference Proceedings of the Conference on “Inter-flow and Trans-border: Ocean, Environment, and Cultural Landscape of Taiwan,” at the University of California, Santa Barbara, organized by the Center for Taiwan Studies, UCSB, Dec. 6–7.
76.
Franck, Thomas F.M. 1990. The power of legitimacy among nations. New York: Oxford University Press.
77.
Hu, Nien-Tsu Alfred. 2010. Semi-enclosed troubled waters: a new thinking on the application of the 1982 UNCLOS article 123 to the South China Sea. Ocean Development and International Law 41 (3): 281–314.CrossRef
78.
79.
Li, Chien-pin. 2016. The South China Sea peace initiative in a transitional security environment. American Journal of Chinese Studies 23 (1): 119–133.
80.
81.
Guillaume, Gilbert. 2011. The use of precedent by international judges and arbitrators. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 2 (1): 5–23.CrossRef
82.
Xu, Yi-chen. 2016. Ma Ying-jeou: Wo Hai Meidao Taipingdao, Jioubeima Pohuai Taimei Guanxi (Ma Ying-jeou: I have been scolded for destructing Taiwan-US relations before my arrival at the Taiping Island). United Daily, Taipei, July 14.
83.
84.
85.
Ho, Szu-yin, and I-chou Liu. 2003. The Taiwanese/Chinese identity of the Taiwan people in the 1990s. In Sayonara to the lee Teng-hui era, politics in Taiwan, 1988–2000, ed. Wei-chin Lee and T.Y. Wang, 149–184. Lanham: University Press of America.
86.
87.
88.
89.
Rigger, Shelley. 2011. Why Taiwan matters. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
Kotani, Tetsuo. 2016. Taipei’s risking agreement with Beijing on Okinotorishima. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. May 10. <amti.csis.org>. Accessed Oct. 10, 2016.
96.
Riben Cengwei Bushi Jiange Wentihua, Biaoshi Zhichi Taiwan Baozhu Lianheguo Xiwei (Japan supported Taiwan to keep the UN membership in order to gain Taiwan’s support to prevent the Diaoyu/Snekaku Islands from becoming a problem). 2014. China Digital Times, July 23. <chinadigitaltime​s.​net/​chinese/​2014/​07…>. Accessed June 24, 2016.
97.
98.
Taiwan does not accept South China Sea ruling: Presidential Office. 2016. Focus Taiwan July 12. <focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201607120024.aspx>. Accessed Nov. 21, 2016.
99.
100.
101.
102.
Snyder, Jack, and Karen Ballentine. 1996. Nationalism and the marketplace of ideas. International Security 21 (2): 5–40.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Taiwan, the South China Sea Dispute, and the 2016 Arbitration Decision
verfasst von
Wei-chin Lee
Publikationsdatum
17.03.2017
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Chinese Political Science / Ausgabe 2/2017
Print ISSN: 1080-6954
Elektronische ISSN: 1874-6357
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-017-9470-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2017

Journal of Chinese Political Science 2/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Book Review

Yongnian Zheng and Lance L. P. Gore, Eds., China Entering the Xi Jinping Era

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Introduction: the South China Sea Dispute and the 2016 Arbitration Decision

REVIEW ESSAY

Review Essay: How to Merge Western Theories and Chinese Indigenous Theories to Study Chinese Politics?

Book Review

John W. Garver, China’s Quest: The History of the Foreign Relations of the People’s Republic of China

Book Review

Andrew G. Walder, China Under Mao: A Revolution Derailed

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The South China Sea Arbitration and Taiwan’s Claim: Legal and Political Implications

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise