My Pet Robot: International Law & South China Sea

+free ebooks

Eric Engle

Sep 22, 2024

Forthcoming, Available for pre-order. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DH449BY5

Free eBooks

Constitutional Law Quiz Questions and Explanatory Answers for Law School and the Bar Exam

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DHGG81Q8

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DHGG81Q8L7KZXV

The Limits of International Law: China's Sovereign Prerogative and the Risk of Regional Conflict in the South China Sea

The international legal system, despite its aspirations for universality and binding authority, is ultimately self-enforcing and subject to the whims of sovereign states. They form something like a cartel of legal violence: they might not enforce their rules all the time, though when they do they tend to do so as a group, as we can see in Ukraine.

The more usual reality of State power, it’s self-enforcement rather than collective enforcement, with push-and pull of sovereigns can be seen clearly in China's behavior in the South China Sea. China has chosen to ignore the rulings of the World Court and pursue a policy of territorial expansion through the construction of man-made islands. This approach undermines the rule of law internationally and, worse, sets China on a collision course with its neighbors, increasing the risk of regional conflict. Likewise, China has unresolved border disputes with all or nearly all her neighbors. Each of these unresolved conflicts has the potential for war.

The concept of sovereignty, which grants states supreme authority within their territorial boundaries, is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it provides states with the freedom to pursue their own interests and policies without external interference. On the other hand, it also allows states to risk the raising the wrath of other states by disregarding international law and customs. Sometimes this risk-taking works, as has been the case so far for China in the South China Sea. The international community's current unwillingness to enforce international law on a recalcitrant China to present highlights the limitations of international law in regulating state behavior.

The World Court's ruling in 2016, which rejected China's claims to historic rights in the South China Sea, is a case in point. China's refusal to recognize the ruling and its continued construction of artificial islands in the disputed waters demonstrate its willingness to disregard international law when it conflicts with its national interests. This behavior is not unique to China, as other states have also ignored international court rulings in the past. However, China's actions are particularly egregious given its growing economic and military power, which makes it a more significant challenge to the international order.

China's foreign policy in the South China Sea and regarding her unresolved border disputes is remarkably foolish. These unresolved disputes antagonize all of China's neighbors, especially Japan, the Philippines, even Vietnam and Indonesia, among others. By failing to resolve border disputes through diplomacy and instead resorting to coercion and intimidation, China is creating an environment conducive to conflict. The consequences of this approach are already evident, with tensions escalating in the region and the risk of miscalculation or accident leading to war.

Worse, China's war strategies include the idea of "losing a war to win the peace." This approach to war is not apprehended by most Western military thinkers and seems to be a curious concept that defies conventional Anglo-American military logic. However, it is entirely logical for weaker States to strategize their defeats, and the failure to see that is yet another example of the failure of strategists to accurately model their opponent thanks to mistakenly projecting their own presumptions, beliefs, goals, and capabilities onto their opponent. If we were so similar there would be no conflict so you need to learn to get inside your opponents' heads if you wish to predict their actions and reactions which are necessary steps to victory.

Winning the peace by losing the war involves sacrificing short-term military gains for long-term strategic advantages. This approach, which China has taken in the past may have worked back then, but it is unlikely to succeed in the current context of global trade and increased Chinese strength. China's military modernization and expansion create a risk of escalation into conflict or even war, to the detriment of the Chinese economy. Moreover, the United States, as a global hegemon, has a vested interest in maintaining stability in the region and is likely to intervene on behalf of its allies in the event of a conflict.

The parallels between China's behavior in the South China Sea and the Balkans powder keg of 1910 are striking. In both cases, a rising power (China in the present day, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the past) is pursuing an aggressive foreign policy that is destabilizing the regional balance of power. The consequences of this approach are potentially catastrophic, as the complex system of alliances and rivalries in the region can easily escalate into a wider conflict.

To conclude, China's behavior in the South China Sea is a classic example of the limits of international law in regulating state behavior. The international community's inability, so far, to enforce its decisions against a recalcitrant China highlights the need for a more robust and effective system of international governance. China's foreign policy in the region is remarkably foolish and is creating an environment conducive to conflict. The country would be well advised to pursue a more diplomatic approach, making treaty agreements with its maritime neighbors to resolve border disputes and reduce tensions. However, given China's current trajectory, it is unlikely to change course, and the region is likely to remain a flashpoint for conflict in the years to come.

To Recap:

1) The World Court's ruling in 2016 rejected China's claims to historic rights in the South China Sea, but China has refused to recognize the ruling and continues to construct artificial islands in the disputed waters.

2) China's foreign policy in the South China Sea is remarkably foolish, as it has managed to antagonize all of China's neighbors, particularly China's maritime neighbors, including Japan, and the Philippines, even Indonesia and Vietnam, among others.

3) China's war strategy, which includes the idea of "losing wars to win the peace," exacerbates the risk and is under-appreciated by other Western strategists thanks to their failure at opponent modelling.

4) The parallels between China's behavior in the South China Sea and the Balkans powder keg of 1910 are striking, with a rising power destabilizing the regional balance of power and creating an environment conducive to conflict.

5) China would be well advised to pursue a more diplomatic approach, making treaty agreements with its maritime neighbors to resolve border disputes and reduce tensions, but it is unlikely to change course given its current trajectory.

How Earth Avoids World Wars: Deterrence+Collective Security+Trade+Human Rights+Functionalism=World Peace

The concept of liberal peace through trade is rooted in the idea that economic interdependence among nations can foster a sense of mutual interest and cooperation, thereby reducing the likelihood of conflict. This notion is supported by the fact that countries with strong trade ties are less likely to engage in military conflicts with one another. For instance, the European Union's (EU) single market and customs union have created a web of economic interdependence among its member states, making war between them unthinkable. Similarly, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has promoted economic cooperation and reduced tensions between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This is also true of ASEAN, MERCOSUR, and the Andean Pact.

Economic interdependence is a guarantee against conflict. History has shown that even countries with significant trade ties can still engage in conflict, as seen in the case of the United States and Japan in the 1940s. Therefore, it is essential to consider other factors that contribute to peace, such as collective security arrangements and deterrence.

Collective security arrangements, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), provide a framework for countries to work together to prevent and respond to security threats. By pooling their resources and capabilities, member states can deter potential aggressors and reduce the likelihood of conflict. For example, NATO's collective defense commitment has helped to maintain stability in Europe and deter Russian aggression.

Deterrence is another crucial factor in maintaining peace. The concept of deterrence is based on the idea that a country's military capabilities and willingness to use force can deter potential aggressors from attacking. For instance, the United States' nuclear deterrent has helped to prevent major conflicts with other nuclear-armed states.

In addition to these factors, functionalist institutionalism also plays a crucial role in promoting peace. This approach emphasizes the importance of international institutions and organizations in promoting cooperation and preventing conflict. For example, the United Nations (UN) provides a platform for countries to engage in diplomacy and resolve disputes peacefully.

These approaches are not mutually exclusive, and a combination of them can be more effective in promoting peace. For instance, the EU's single market and customs union have been complemented by collective security arrangements, such as NATO, and functionalist institutionalism, such as the UN.

In contrast, liberalism and diviso et impero balance of power approaches are rightly criticized for their limitations in promoting peace. Liberalism's focus on individual rights and freedoms can lead to a lack of attention to collective security concerns, while diviso et impero balance of power approaches can create a security dilemma, where one country's efforts to increase its security are perceived as a threat by other countries.

1) The EU's single market and customs union have created a sense of mutual interest and cooperation among its member states, reducing the likelihood of conflict.

2) Collective security arrangements, such as NATO, provide a framework for countries to work together to prevent and respond to security threats.

3) Deterrence, such as the United States' nuclear deterrent, can prevent major conflicts with other nuclear-armed states.

4) Functionalist institutionalism, such as the UN, provides a platform for countries to engage in diplomacy and resolve conflicts.

5) A combination of these approaches is much more effective in promoting peace than any one approach alone.

The use of force should be a last resort, and only used in a defensive manner. The concept of defensive realism emphasizes the importance of a strong military defense to deter potential aggressors and protect national interests. However, this does not mean that force should be used preemptively or aggressively. Instead, it should be used in a targeted and proportionate manner to respond to specific security threats.

1) The use of force should be a last resort, and only used in a defensive manner.

2) Defensive realism emphasizes the importance of a strong military defense to deter potential aggressors and protect national interests.

3) Force should not be used preemptively or aggressively, but rather in a targeted and proportionate manner to respond to specific security threats.

In conclusion, a combination of liberal peace through trade, collective security arrangements, deterrence, and functionalist institutionalism is effective in promoting peace. The use of force should be a last resort, and only used in a defensive manner. By understanding these concepts and approaches, we can better promote peace and stability in the world.

We do have a grand strategy for victory.