SENGKETA PERBATASAN MARITIM DI ASIA PASIFIK ; MASA DEPAN BESERTA KEMUNGKINANNYA

Pendahuluan

Salah satu permasalahan yang terjadi di Asia Pasifik yang merupakan sengketa

multi nasional adalah sengketa perbatasan maritim yang terjadi di beberapa

tempat di kawasan Asia Pasifik. Hal ini menjadi sengketa multi nasional karena

adanya klaim yang tumpang tindih antara dua atau lebih negara. Sengketa yang

terjadi juga memiliki dasar yang berbeda-beda, masing-masing negara

mempunyai dasar sendiri-sendiri dalam melakukan klaim atas wilayahnya, ada

yang menggunakan dasar historis sebagai dasar klaimnya, ada juga yang

ditimbulkan akibat diterapkannya UNCLOS sebagai dasar dalam menentukan

batas wilayahnya sesuai dengan rezim yang dimuat di dalam UNCLOS.

Menariknya walau memiliki dasar yang berbeda-beda, namun semua klaim yang

merupakan hasil dari kepentingan nasional (National Interest) masing-masing

Negara yang terlibat. Setiap negara melihat wilayah territorial sebagai bagian

yang penting, dimana wilayah territorial merupakan media dalam penggalian

sumber daya yang sangat dibutuhkan oleh negara untuk mendukung

pembangunan dan kesinambungan Negara. Kemudian faktor lain yang memicu

terjadinya sengketa adalah rasa nasionalisme atau kebanggaan dari masing-

masing Negara.

Salah satu sengketa perbatasan yang paling kompleks di kawasan Asia Pasifik

adalah sengketa Spratly. Sengketa yang terjadi di wilayah Laut China Selatan ini

melibatkan 5 negara yaitu China, Vietnam, Philipina, Malaysia dan Brunei

Darusssalam. Seperti yang telah diuraikan di atas, setiap Negara mempunyai

dasar yang berbeda-beda dalam melakukan klaim atas wilayahnya, demikian

juga luas wilayah yang diklaimpun berbeda-beda satu sama lain dan terjadi

tumpang tindih dalam klaim wilayah tersebut, ini yang menyebakan sengketa ini

menjadi sangat kompleks dan sulit untuk diselesaikan. Klaim berdasarkan history

dilakukan oleh China, Vietnam dan Philipina, kemudian klaim berdasarkan

pemberdayaan wilayah dilakukan oleh China, Vietnam, Philipina dan Malaysia,

selanjutnya klaim yang didasarkan atas berlakunya UNCLOS dilakukan oleh

Vietnam, Philipina, Malaysia dan Brunei Darussalam. Setiap Negara memliki

beberapa dasar untuk mem-back up klaim yang dilakukannnya sehingga

membuat sengketa ini menjadi bertambah komplek.

Sengketa yang terjadi ini baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung akan

mempengaruhi lingkungan strategis dari kawasan tersebut. Sengketa ini akan

menaikkan suhu dan ketegangan dari Negara-negara yang terlibat, namun disisi

lain sebenarnya sengketa ini juga memberikan kesempatan bagi Negara-negara

yang berselisih untuk saling berkomunikasi dan bekerja sama dalam upaya

mendapatkan solusi atau pemecahan yang terbaik dari sengketa yang terjadi.

Tulisan ini akan membahas kemungkinan-kemungkinan yang diakibatkan oleh

sengketa-sengketa perbatasan yang ada di kawasan Asia Pasifik utamanya

sengketa Spratly dan juga kemungkinan-kemungkinan untuk mencapai resolusi

secara damai dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi.

SENGKETA PERBATASAN MARITIM DI ASIA PASIFIK

Pada bagian ini akan dibahas sengketa perbatasan maritim yang terjadi

berdasarkan kategori untuk memudahkan bagi kita memahami dan

mengidentifikasi factor-faktor yang menyebabkan sengketa tersebut terjadi.

LATAR BELAKANG SEJARAH

Sebelum ada era kolonisasi oleh bangsa Eropa di kawasan Asia Pasifik,

kawasan ini dikuasai oleh kerajaan-kerajaan yang tersebar di kawasan.

Antar kerajaan-kerajaan ini tidak dibatasi oleh suatu batas wilayah yang

jelas satu sama lain secara administratif, melainkan lebih didasarkan atas

saling pengertian satu sama lain, sehingga batas wilayah ini tidak tertuang

dalam bentuk garis batas, dokumen-dokumen resmi atau aturan-aturan

yang mengatur untuk menandakan batas kekuasaan/wilayah dari

kerajaan-kerajaan tersebut. Namun demikian hubungan antara kerajaan-

kerajaan tersebut sangat unik, pengertian antara kerajaan demikian juga

dengan rakyat dari kerajaan-kerajaan tersebut sudah dapat dimengerti

secara mendalam oleh masing-masing pihak dan mereka saling

menghormati dan memiliki tenggang rasa yang tinggi dalam hal ini.

Rakyat di jaman itu hidup dalam kelompok-kelompok yang dikenal dengan

istilah suku serta membentuk bahasa dan budaya diantara suku-suku

tersebut. Dari budaya suku inilah kemudian berkembang cerita-cerita dan

dokumen-dokumen yang bersifat tidak resmi mengenai kewilayahan dari

masing-masing suku yang mana hal ini masih berlaku dan dipercayai

hingga saat ini.

Pada abad pertengahan, kawasan Asia Pasifik menjadi daerah koloni dari

bangsa-bangsa Eropa. Adanya kebutuhan untuk memdapatkan sumber

daya telah memaksa bangsa-bangsa Eropa untuk memperluas wilayah

kekuasaan mereka sampai ke seluruh pelosok dunia. Mulai dari Portugis

diikuti oleh Spanyol, Inggris dan Belanda datang ke Asia Pasifik dalam

usahanya mendapatkan sumber daya, diawali dengan perdagangan

dengan bangsa-bangsa di Asia Pasifik hingga akhirnya terjadi kompetisi

antar bangsa-bangsa Eropa untuk mendapatkan sumber daya tersebut.

Setelah kompetisi semakin meningkat, usaha ini semakin keras dilakukan

oleh bangsa-bangsa Eropa sehingga mulailah timbulnya monopoli

perdagangan sampai dengan akhirnya timbul klaim atas wilayah sebagai

awal dimulainya era penjajahan oleh bangsa-bangsa Eropa terhadap

bangsa-bangsa di Asia Pasifik. Klaim atas wilayah ini lebih didasari atas

dasar kepentingan dan kebutuhan mereka atas sumber daya pada saat

itu, dengan kata lain apabila di suatu wilayah mereka tidak memiliki

kepentingan atau tidak ada ketertarikan pada wilayah tersebut, maka

mereka tidak menarik garis di wilayah tersebut, sebagai contoh pulau

karang atau pulau-pulau kecil yang tidak memiliki sumber daya alam juga

batas-batas wilayah laut, karena pada saat itu pencarian sumber daya

lebih kepada sumber daya di darat berupa hasil-hasil perkebunan,

sehingga batas-batas wilayah laut tidak begitu diperhatikan dan menjadi

tidak jelas antara daeah-daerah koloni pada saat itu. Ketidak jelasin inilah

yang kemudian menjadi masalah setelah berakhirnya era kolonisasi di

kawasan ini. Negara-negara baru yang bermunculan setelah era

kolonisasi berakhir mempunyai wawasan dan kepentingan yang berbeda

dengan Negara-negara penjajah di waktu lalu. Kepentingan yang ada

berkembang sejalan dengan perkembangan teknologi dan pengetahuan,

tidak hanya sebatas kepentingan di darat namun berkembang ke wilayah

laut sebagai bagian dari wilayah Negara berdaulat. Pulau-pulau yang tidak

dimanfaatkan sewaktu jaman kolonisasi sekarang berubah menjadi

kepentingan strategis bagi Negara-negara baru yang muncul. Status

kepemilikan dari pulau-pulau yang tidak jelas pada masa kolonisasi dapat

menjadi sumber persengketaan dari Negara-negara yang ada di kawasan

ini.

Kolonisasi juga telah merusak kesepahaman/pengertian antara kerajaan-

kerajaan yang pernah ada. Pembagian wilayah kekuasaan yang dibatasi

oleh kepentingan dan dilaksanakan melalui perjanjian-perjanjian oleh

bangsa-bangsa penjajah telah merusak system yang telah ada

sebelumnya, dan hal ini juga menambah ketidak jelasan dari batas

wilayah Negara-negara serta memancing timbulnya sengketa antara

Negara-negara yang eksis di kawasan saat ini. Perjanjian-perjanjian

antara bangsa-bangsa penjajah pada waktu lalu tidak dapat memberikan

penjelasan yang jelas untuk menghindari terjadinya sengketa setelah

mereka meninggalkan kawasan ini.

Pengusaan wilayah pada saat perang dunia juga menimbulkan asumsi

bahwa suatu wilayah secara factual menjadi bagian wilayah suatu

Negara, dan ketika perang berakhir, pemenang perang mengembalikan

kembali wilayah-wilayah kepada Negara-negara di wilayah ini sehingga

dijadikan dasar bagi Negara-negar tersebut untuk mengklaim wilayah

tersebut sebagia bagian dari wilayah mereka. Hal ini juga menambah

ketidak jelasan batas wilayah dari Negara-negara di kawasan Asia Pasifik.

Dari uraian di atas dapat kita lihat dari latar belakang sejarah factor-faktor

yang dapat mempengaruhi terjadinya sengketa wilayah seperti system

politik sebelum era kolonisasi, kemudian adanya dekolonisasi itu sendiri

serta penggunaan wilayah era perang dunia yang semakin membuat

ketidak jelasan batas-batas wilayah antar Negara sehingga memicu

adanya sengketa wilayah antar Negara-negara tersebut.

UNCLOS

With the existence of UNCLOS, it makes the claimants have a legal basis

to the territory that they already had claimed before base on the historical

back ground and / or occupation. Furthermore it also causes new

claimants. Based on UNCLOS, the right to explore and exploit resources

becomes larger with the adding of territorial sea and ZEE. The adding

territorial sea and ZEE sometimes make overlap one to another. UNCLOS

doesn’t regulate specifically when it is happens, it should be solved by

specific agreement among the countries bilaterally or regionally. It also

makes the maritime disputes become even more complex than before.

FACTORS THAT INFLUANCE THE COUNTRIES TO APPLYING THEIR

CLAIM

Historical back ground and UNCLOS has been explained above, how they

can contribute to the maritime disputes that happens, however the main

reason of disputes itself is lying on the national interest of each country

that involve in the disputes. Long time ago at the pre colonization era,

maritime territorial disputes was not happen in Asia Pacific region,

because the interest at that time was different. People at that time saw the

sea as a free territory that can used by any other nation, both as a

transportation media and as a media to explore natural resources such as

fishing activities. The distribution of power that represented by territory

was much more lying on the land, furthermore oil was not invented yet.

With the invention of oil and the advancement of technology that make

possibility to explore and exploit more resources at the sea, the interest to

sea as a source of resources become bigger. Furthermore, the

advancement in maritime trade as well as the advancement of the ability

to project power from the sea makes the control and authorization over

maritime territory become more important for one nation. The need of

space to maneuver in order to protect their own territory changes the view

or consideration to the sea territory. Sea has seen not only as a

transportation media but also as an important part of nation to get

resources that needed for develop the economy, and furthermore sea as a

media to defense. It makes the explanation how vital to control the sea

territory for one nation, that also makes and force the countries to claim

sea territory in vicinity and even to claim sea territory as far as possible to

get a maximum space to maneuver for nation protection and maximum

advantages of resources from the sea.

The situations that mention above result a maritime disputes, and make the

disputes become very complex. One of the disputes that happen in Asia Pacific

region is Spratly Maritime disputes. In this case the dispute become very

complex since involving many countries as claimants, the bases from each

country also different and supported by both historical and UNCLOS, the area

that they claim are overlap one to another.

SPRATLY ‘S MARITIME TERRITORIAL DISPUTES; CURRENT SITUATION AND POSSIBILITY

The Spratly Islands consist of 100 - 230 islets, coral reefs and sea mounts.1

Despite the fact that the archipelago is spread over 250,000 sq km of sea space,

the total land mass of the Spratly Islands is a mere 5 sq km. The land is not

arable, does not support permanent crops, and has no meadows, pastures or

forests.2 Furthermore, the Spratly Islands have not been occupied by humans

until recently.

The Spratly Islands are situated in the South China Sea, one of the largest

continental shelves in the world. Typically, continental shelves are abundant in

resources such as oil, natural gas, minerals, and seafood. One study conducted

by China estimated oil reserves in the South China Sea to be larger than

Kuwait's present reserves.3 Oil and natural gas reserves in the Spratly region are

estimated at 17.7 billion tons; Kuwait's reserves amount to 13 billion tons.4 The

fishing zone around the South China Sea ranks fourth among the world's

nineteen fishing zones in terms of total annual marine production.5

The security situation in the South China Sea region is characterised by a

multinational dispute over the territorial delimitation of the South China Sea.

1 http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html; b. Kiras, James. "The South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute."2 http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html.3 Kiras, James. "The South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute." Peacekeeping & International Relations. Jul/Aug 1995: 3-44 http://snipe.ukc.ac.uk/international/dissert.dir/marsh.html. 5 http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm

There are overlapping claims between 5 states to the Spratly area. The lack of a

firm security structure in the region makes the territorial dispute an explosive

issue. On the other hand, the dispute provides the regional states in Southeast

and East Asia with an incentive and opportunity to develop regional co-operative

institutions.6

Approximately 44 of the 51 small islands and reefs are claimed or occupied by

China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. The conflict is the result of

overlapping sovereignty claims to various Spratly Islands thought to possess

substantial natural resources --chiefly oil, natural gas, and seafood.

Disputes have been propelled by an aggressive China, eager to meet growing

energy demands that outstrip its supply capability. Overlapping claims resulted in

several military incidents since 1974 and in several countries awarding foreign

companies exploration rights in the same area of the South China Sea. Regional

nation-states not directly involved in the Spratly disputes became concerned

about regional stability and established a regional forum to discuss the peaceful

resolution of the disputes. Sovereignty and exploration disputes were thought to

be resolved with the drafting of ASEAN's 1992 declaration which committed

members to resolve disputes peacefully and to consider joint exploration of the

territory. Military aggression and exploration endeavors conducted by China

since 1992, however, have brought into question the validity of the 1992 joint

declaration and raises the question of what long-term, peaceful solution could

prevent the region from erupting into a continuum of military incidents over

sovereignty rights to the natural resource-rich Spratly Islands.7

6 http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm7 http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm

Claims to various islands of the archipelago began in the 1930s. Since the

1950s, the involved claimants have developed 29 oil fields and 4 gas fields in the

Spratly region.8

CHINA ‘S PERSPECTIVE

China's energy balance of trade has dramatically deteriorated since the

early 1990s, causing China to become a net importer of oil for the first

time in over 25 years.9 Dependence on imported oil is likely to continue,

given its low per capita energy consumption rate -- 40% of the world

average. Unless China can find a way of coping with the high start-up

costs, waste products and safety concerns affiliated with the

implementation of nuclear energy, oil will remain one of China's leading

energy sources for the mid-to-long term.10

Spratly offers oil to China. In 1992 China passed a special territorial sea

and contiguous zone act to legalize its claims to the Spratly. Article 2 of

this legislation specifically identifies both the Paracel and Spratly

archipelagos as Chinese territory.11 China’s basis of claim to the Spratly is

based on first discovery and historical claims.

Economic exploration endeavors appear to ignite the tenuous stability in

the Spratly region. China granted oil exploration rights to foreign oil firms

in territories with overlapping claims. In 1992, China National Offshore Oil

Corp signed a joint exploration contract with Crestone Energy Corp. for a

disputed area in the Spratly Islands. The Sino-U.S. contract infuriated

8 "Territorial Disputes Simmer in Areas of South China Sea." Oil & Gas Journal. Vol 90 No 28. 13 Jul 19929 Calder, Kent E. "Asia's Empty Tank." Foreign Affairs Vol 75 No 2. Mar/Apr 199610 Calder, Kent E. "Asia's Empty Tank." Foreign Affairs Vol 75 No 2. Mar/Apr 199611 Christopher C. Joyner. The Spratly Islands Dispute in the South China Sea: Problems, Policies and Prospects for Diplomatic Accommodation

Vietnam, who claimed the contract location is part of its exclusive

economic zone. The situation was further aggravated in 1996, when

Vietnam forged ahead with joint exploration plans in Spratly waters also

claimed by China. Vietnam awarded exploration rights to Conoco in 1996,

infuriating China. China claims that the area covered in the 1996 Vietnam-

Conoco deal overlaps with the block awarded to Crestone Energy by

China in 1992.12

The conflict is further exacerbated by foreign firms willing to undertake

riskier oil development projects in Asia. The foreign oil firms are looking to

profit from the current energy boom in Asia as well as to find replacement

reserves for those in the United States and the North Sea where

production approaches their peak.13

Aside from granting foreign firms exploration rights in disputed waters and

conducting military exercises in the Spratly area, China has also

committed itself to the build-up of its navy and air force. The Financial

Times reported in August of 1996 that China planned to purchase

advanced navy radar from the British. This radar would improve warning

signals to China of 'impending' attacks as well as facilitate naval task

group deployment in the South China Sea.14

Another interest of China in Spratly is fishing. Fishing remains an

important economic activity for China, and these waters hold abundant

supplies of numerous fish species. A recent study indicated that the

Spratly area in the South China Sea, covering some 390,000 square

kilometres, is one of the world’s richest fishing grounds, yielding up 7.5

tons of fish per square kilometre.15

12 "Risk and Return." The Economist. 27 Apr 1996: 6613 "Risk and Return." The Economist. 27 Apr 1996: 6614 "China to Buy British Advanced Navy Radar." Financial Times. 6 Aug 1996: 115 Christopher C. Joyner. The Spratly Islands Dispute in the South China Sea: Problems, Policies and Prospects for Diplomatic Accommodation

China need for stability and energy resources to sustain its economic

growth and fulfill its national objective. The world is beginning to accept

China’s role on the world stage. China’s economy is no longer and

isolated economy, and is increasingly plugged into the global economy.

China’s economy has grown, making her the world’s 3rd largest economy.

Besides the resources, Spratly also offers an access for China to maintain

their trading and security related. Access is necessary for trade flows

which are crucial to China’s continued economic growth. Spratly also

gives a space for China to occupy their naval forces to protect national

security from a sea-based attack; Spratly is seen as a strategic asset by

China.

VIETNAM ‘S PERSPECTIVE

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is one of the six nations that has laid

claim to Spratly islands. Vietnam has been one of the most adamant in its

claims and that has taken assertive steps in attempting to establish its

control over the chain. Its willingness to go so far as to risk war with the

mighty People's Republic of China (PRC) is evidence enough that the

Spratly Islands are extremely important to Vietnam.16

While Spratly Islands had been utilized for centuries by fishers from

various countries, especially from Vietnam and China, the question

remains as to which people first discovered the archipelago. Most agree

that the Chinese were probably the first to find the islands, although

Vietnam contends that "not only the Chinese, but also the Vietnamese, the

Malays, the Persians, the Arabs made voyages to and from the waters of

the Truong Sa (Spratly)," and that any of these groups could have

16 Todd C. Kelly, Vietnamese Claims to the Truong Sa Archipelago [Ed. Spratly Islands]

"discovered" the chain.17 Vietnam has also declared that "even if it is true

that the Chinese discovered these archipelagos," Hanoi will continue to

refute China's claim because discovery alone does "not constitute a legal

basis for the Chinese claim that they have been under Chinese

jurisdiction."18

Regardless of which nation actually discovered the islands, Vietnam

maintains that it alone exercised the earliest authority and control over the

Spratly Islands. Until the 17th century, no written documents existed to

prove this assertion. The first mention of Vietnamese exercise of

sovereignty over the island chain appears in an annotated atlas written

between 1630 and 1653. Although a 17th century document, textual

analysis including "historical references and linguistic style" indicates that

this early contact with the islands actually began some 200 years earlier,

under the reign of King Le Than Tong [1460 - 1497].19

During the 17th century that the Truong Sa was placed under the

administration of the Binh Son district within the Quang Nghia prefecture

of Vietnam. Route Maps from the Capital to the Four Directions by Do Ba

Cong Dao provides documentation of sovereignty over the Truong Sa

archipelago, the first Vietnamese documentation of formal exercise of

authority over the Truong Sa.20

Vietnam’s biggest threat in Spratly disputes context is China, which is its

largest neighbor. However, it is also highly dependent on China for

imports and exports. Consequently, Vietnam is seeking to balance the

17 The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos and International Law (Hanoi: Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1988).18 The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos: Vietnamese Territories (Hanoi: Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1982).19 Gerardo Martin C. Valero, Spratly Archipelago: Is the Question of Sovereignty Still Relevant? (Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, 1993).20 The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos: Vietnamese Territories, 1 - 2.

power asymmetry with China by engaging China through multilateral

organizations such as ASEAN.

Vietnam exports crude oil and imports refined petroleum. Having access

to the Spratly’s oil deposits will serve to enhance its oil reserves, which will

boost its economy.

Fisheries are an important part of the Vietnamese economy. Hence,

having access to the fishing grounds in the Spratly will serve to enhance

their fisheries industry, thereby contributing to their economic growth.

Control of Spratly will have some impact on SLOC access for Vietnam’s

trade dependent economy. However, the impact for Vietnam is not as

significant as compared to China’s. Due to Vietnam’s long coast-line

facing the South China Sea, it is in her interest to ensure that the SLOCs

remain accessible and that the islands are not dominated by a less than

friendly power.

Vietnam wants stability for continued economic growth. Hence, she does

not want the disputes to cause instability, which will affect her economic

growth. However, she also doesn’t want to see China dominating,

especially off Vietnam’s coast. Vietnam does not want to antagonize

China due to its economic dependence on China. Hence, Vietnam is

unlikely to allow the disputes to affect bilateral ties with China.

Vietnam is a credible naval power, and is the 2nd largest naval power

amongst the claimants. However, China’s navy is much larger, which

makes it unlikely for Vietnam to pursue a military solution to the disputes.

It is in Vietnam’s interests to keep the disputes issue alive. This will serve

register their position that the issue is not resolved and they do not accept

the current situation. This may be useful in the future to further press their

claims when conditions are more favorable.21 Vietnam is trying to

strengthen her claims by selectively working with other claimants to

countervail China’s influence. Hence, Vietnam prefers to work through

ASEAN and other international forums to balance China’s influence.

PHILIPINA, BRUNEI AND MALAYSIA

Philippines base their claims of sovereignty over the Spratly on the issues

of res nullius and geography. Philippines contend Kalayaan was res

nullius as there was no effective sovereignty over the islands until the

nineteen thirties when France and then Japan acquired the islands.

Philippine claim to Kalayaan on geographical bases can be summarized

using the assertion that Kalayaan is distinct from other island groups in the

South China Sea.22

A second argument used by the Philippines regarding their geographical

claim over the Spratly is that all the islands claimed by the Philippines lie

within their archipelagic baselines, the only claimant who can make such a

statement. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS) stated that a coastal state could claim two hundred nautical

miles of jurisdiction beyond its land boundaries. It is perhaps telling that

while the Philippines is a signatory to UNCLOS, the PRC and Vietnam are

not. The Philippines also argue, under Law of the Sea provisions, that the

PRC cannot extend its baseline claims to the Spratly because the PRC is

not an archipelagic state. Whether this argument (or any other used by the

Philippines) would hold up in court is debatable but possibly moot, as the

PRC and Vietnam seem unwilling to legally substantiate their claims and

have rejected Philippine challenges to take the dispute to the World

Maritime Tribunal in Hamburg.23

21 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_mysvnm_33_2009.htm22 http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spratly-islands/philippine-claims on the spratly islands.html

23 http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spratly-islands/philippine-claims on the spratly islands.html

Brunei and Malaysia base their claims of sovereignty over the Spratly

purely on UNCLOS. Due to low military capability compare to the two-first

claimants, the three-latter claimants have so far kept quiet. However they

keep trying to open their chances and take any advantages when there is

any, such as Philippines where they call China as a big brother, they keep

their chance remain open to gain advantages from their relation with

China.

THE POSSIBLITY OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Due to demand for energy security, there will be a time dimension as the demand

for energy increases over time. Hence, the pressure for exploration to determine

oil and gas deposits will increase on the claimants, particularly when oil price

increases.

The growing importance of SLOCs for all nations to gain access to import/export

markets may lead to a situation where no one country is allowed to dominate the

Spratly. Particularly for countries that are traditionally not transparent about their

intentions.

Given the complex overlapping claims on different basis by the various

claimants, the Spratly disputes might not be resolved solely on one basis alone,

for example using historical background only or UNCLOS only. Hence, there is

currently no established basis or framework for resolution of the Spratly disputes.

Thus, there is a need for a different approach to conflict resolution.

Considering the complexity of the issue, it is better to have conflict prevention

rather than seek a permanent resolution, since none of the claimants are likely to

compromise their sovereignty claims.

With the rise of China, the power asymmetry between the claimants will

increasingly be skewed in favor of China. Being the biggest player; China’s

actions would determine the potential for inter-state conflicts in the region.

Whether act as an aggressor by using military power, or maintain status quo

while she can still enjoy and take an advantages of current strategic environment

in South China Sea, or establish cooperative approach to gain respect in the

region and to be seen as a responsible international player. For the last option,

China might leverage on deepening China – ASEAN relation or use her economy

might to influence the other claimants to play in China’s way.

As the volume of world trade increases, the cost for going to conflict amongst the

claimants increases due to the disruption to world trade that such conflicts will

cause. Hence, it is in the claimants’ interests to avoid conflict and seek peaceful

resolution. More and more countries are looking towards a common international

framework to resolve disputes rather than resort to force. Increasingly, countries

are seeking to resolve disputes amicably. International norms increasingly

regulate how nations conduct their relations with other countries.

From this, we can deliver three possibilities path of conflict resolution in the

context of Spratly maritime disputes. First, China takes all the territory using its

power to force other claimants to give up on the disputes, consider the other

claimants will not try to contend China by exercising their military power, due to

the powerless military power compare to China as well as the need of stability

and dependence to China in order to keep and maintain their economic growing.

Second path is maintaining status quo over the disputes. The situation will

remain the same; it can be seen as conflict prevention rather than conflict

resolution, but it still leaves the potential oil problem unclear. The last path is

establishing agreement on division of economic gains. This can be achieved if

each claimant can decline the nationalism. The strong relationship between

China and ASEAN could be used as an important tool.

CONCLUSION

Maritime territorial disputes in Asia Pacific region were aroused as a result of

national interest. In order to achieve their interest, states are using some different

reasons as base for their claim. The overlap claim creates the disputes over the

region and with the various basis that are used by claimant, make the dispute

become very complex. The dispute that happens also creates tension among the

claimants and also influences other countries which also need stability in the

region to conduct maritime trade. On the other hand it is also given an open

chance to establish cooperation among the countries in the region.

Current geo political within the region also lead the claimant in their effort to

achieve conflict resolution over the disputes. The need of stability within the

region, inter dependant in order to maintain economic growth as well as power

comparison among the claimant have form certain paths to the conflict resolution.

In this case, a hundred percents of satisfaction of each claimant might not be

achieved; however there is a possibility where peace full agreement might be

achieved in solving the disputes in Asia Pacific region.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html; b. Kiras, James. "The

South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute."

2. http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pg.html.

3. Kiras, James. "The South China Sea: Issues of a Maritime Dispute."

Peacekeeping & International Relations. Jul/Aug 1995: 3-4

4. http://snipe.ukc.ac.uk/international/dissert.dir/marsh.html.

5. http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm

6. “Territorial Disputes Simmer in Areas of South China Sea." Oil & Gas

Journal. Vol 90 No 28. 13 Jul 1992

7. Calder, Kent E. "Asia's Empty Tank." Foreign Affairs Vol 75 No 2. Mar/Apr

1996

8. Christopher C. Joyner. The Spratly Islands Dispute in the South China

Sea: Problems, Policies and Prospects for Diplomatic Accommodation

9. "Risk and Return." The Economist. 27 Apr 1996: 66

10. "China to Buy British Advanced Navy Radar." Financial Times. 6 Aug

1996: 1

11. Todd C. Kelly, Vietnamese Claims to the Truong Sa Archipelago [Ed.

Spratly Islands]

12. The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos and International Law (Hanoi:

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1988).

13. Gerardo Martin C. Valero, Spratly Archipelago: Is the Question of

Sovereignty Still Relevant? (Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International

Legal Studies, 1993).

14. The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos: Vietnamese Territories, 1 - 2.

15. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcsnew/submissionsfiles/submission mysvnm

33 2009.htm

16 http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spratly-islands/philippine-claims on the

spratly islands.html