22vPaX

oundtable • non-claimant perspectives on the south china sea
behavior. If China is determined to do so, this could be a huge asset for
South Korea in resolving the North Korean nuclear threat and facilitating
reunification of the Korean Peninsula. When such huge security interests are
at stake, it is not easy for Seoul to risk upsetting Beijing by siding with the
ASEAN countries or the United States in the South China Sea disputes.
Implications for Other Maritime Disputes in East Asia
In East Asia, several countries are involved in maritime disputes in
the East China Sea and the East Sea—namely, Japan and China over the
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and South Korea and Japan over Dokdo/Takeshima.
Although geographically distant, the South China Sea issue is interlinked
with these maritime disputes in East Asia in a very interesting way. In short,
what China represents in the South China Sea is what Japan represents in
the Dokdo case in the East China Sea. Likewise, what Japan represents in
the Senkaku dispute is similar to South Korea’s position regarding Dokdo.
These tangled linkages will make any legal approach to resolving the
disputes hard to implement.
In general, China is against the so-called internationalization of
the South China Sea issue: it opposes the involvement of non-claimant
countries and has tried to keep the disputes quiet, while attempting
to expand its effective control in the South China Sea. In the Senkaku
case, China claims that the islands are a disputed territory, while Japan
insists that there is no dispute and that the islands are under Japan’s
effective control. As a result, Tokyo opposes any legal action through the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) that China may want. By contrast,
in the Dokdo case, Japan is of the opinion that the territory is disputed
and has proposed to take the case to the ICJ, which South Korea opposes.
Seoul argues that the islands are under South Korea’s effective control and
that there is no territorial dispute in the East Sea.
If China pushes forward its position in the Senkaku dispute, then it will
face problems in the South China Sea when ASEAN countries try to take
the case to the ICJ. Likewise, if Japan tries to take the Dokdo case to the ICJ,
it will face a dilemma in the Senkaku dispute if China tries the same tactic.
In short, a state’s legal action in one dispute will put the same country in a
legal dilemma in another. The pursuit of a legal solution in one case could
cause a chain reaction in all three cases. This is one of the reasons that a
legal solution is not an easy option in maritime disputes in East Asia.
[ 39 ]