Latest News
Dissecting China's South China Sea Conspiracy Allegations and Arbitration Dynamics
Dissecting China's South China Sea Conspiracy Allegations and Arbitration Dynamics
Conspiracy theories are the convictions that a bad circumstance or incident is the product of a covert plot by influential individuals. Because they are self-sealing, they are highly vulnerable to challenge and difficult to counteract. However, there is a good case to be made against conspiracy theories given their lengthy history of negative influence and affinity for unfavourable causes. A comprehensive approach that offers rational and empirical justifications for refuting the hypothesis should be taken. China cleverly applies the conspiracy idea to international arbitration, claiming that in 2013 the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea masterminded political manipulation that resulted in the selection of judges to the Arbitral Tribunal. Due to suspected manipulation, a tribunal with no experience in Asia was appointed. In exchange for the Philippines covering the arbitration's expenses, the tribunal reportedly rendered a favourable decision for the country. According to the idea, the United States influenced the arbitration.
Instead of considering other potential reasons like mobilizing the government's internal friends or using strategic signalling directed at international audiences, recent studies in comparative politics have concentrated on regime legitimacy and stability as major drivers of authoritarian communication tactics. Complementary ideas have frequently been misrepresented as competing alternative explanations by foreign policy specialists. This makes the point that many seemingly opposing explanations are logically coherent and, frequently, mutually reinforcing if the various local and foreign audiences for authoritarian propaganda are considered.
International Arbitration Claims in the South China Sea Dispute
China's allegation in the South China Sea arbitration case of a US-led conspiracy centres on the US's purported influence over the schedule for the Merits Award's issuance. China claims that due to US pressure, the Merits Hearing was rescheduled for July 12; nevertheless, the Tribunal denied permission for the US to attend as an observer. China, however, offers no proof that the release date was delayed, and it is improbable that the hold-up could be interpreted as an endorsement of the recently elected Philippine government. The fact that the US was not permitted to attend the November 2015 Hearing on the Merits serves as the best refutation of the claim that the US was manipulating the Tribunal. The arbitral process has unavoidably generated a lot of attention because of China's exaggerated maritime claims and artificial island-building, which have caused enormous worry among littoral States in the South China Sea and beyond. The US declined to let the US to attend the Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, despite five states requesting and being given permission to do so as observers.
Because it has not been ratified, the US is not a State party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The US could not have a legal stake in how the Convention is interpreted and applied as a third state. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea's interpretation and implementation are at issue in the conflict between China and the Philippines. A far wider swath of the world's governments shares the key characteristics of the PRC's Marxist-Leninist party-state, including strict control over the mass media and institutionalized manipulation of public discourse. To settle contested claims in the South China Sea, the Philippines requested arbitration procedures in 2013 under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Beijing said that it would not accept, participate in, recognize, or execute Manila's proposal. The Hague established a tribunal consisting of five arbitrators, and the case was handled by UNCLOS Annex VII. In a formal written case known as a "Memorial," Manila contested China's "historic rights" claims in the region, as well as its large-scale land-building projects and harassment of Philippine fishermen. Although it continued to abstain from participation, the PRC clarified Beijing's stances in a position paper published in December 2014. The tribunal decided on October 29, 2015, that the case would proceed to the merits stage and that it had been duly constituted by UNCLOS. The announcement of the South China Sea case verdict in late 2015 marked the start of China's arbitration campaign. After first criticizing the Philippines for using such legal tactics, the PRC eventually withdrew from the dispute because of pressure from the Philippines' outpost on the sea. The CCP propaganda apparatus sprung into action when the Philippines presented its tribute in 2014, accusing the country of violating its sovereignty with harsh, vituperative rhetoric. China objected to the ruling, labelling it "null and void," after the arbitral panel acknowledged jurisdiction in October 2015.
Conclusion
China's conspiracy theory of international arbitration is not defensible under careful examination, and its detractors have focused more on the idea's readership than its creators. These results imply that authoritarian propaganda operations can have "life cycles," wherein mobilization occurs at the start, signalling, and diversion occur in between, and pacification occurs in the end. The interplay of many motivations might provide insight into other recent PRC foreign policy media efforts, including the US-China trade war, and the surge of anti-Korean propaganda surrounding the installation of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence system in South Korea.
Reference
[1] Chubb, Andrew, and Frances Yaping Wang. "Authoritarian Propaganda Campaigns on Foreign Affairs: Four Birds, One Stone, and the South China Sea Arbitration." International Studies Quarterly 67.3 (2023): sqad047.
[2] Kardon, Isaac B. "China Can Say" No": Analyzing China's Rejection of the South China Sea Arbitration: Toward a New Era of International Law with Chinese Characteristics." U. Pa. Asian L. Rev. 13 (2018): 1.
[3] ROBLES, ALFREDO C. “Unraveling China’s Conspiracy Theory of International Arbitration.” The South China Sea Arbitration: Understanding the Awards and Debating with China, Liverpool University Press, 2019, pp. 253–66. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv3029jg3.22. Accessed 14 Feb. 2024.
- China lacks evidence for its claim of a US-led conspiracy in the South China Sea arbitration, particularly regarding the Merits Award's schedule.
- The US's exclusion from key hearings contradicts China's narrative of US manipulation, weakening the credibility of the alleged conspiracy.
- China's withdrawal and subsequent propaganda campaign suggest a strategic response to legal tactics in the South China Sea dispute, reflecting complex motivations in foreign policy media efforts.
