• Home
  • About RSIS
    • Introduction
    • Building the Foundations
    • Welcome Message
    • Board of Governors
    • Staff Profiles
      • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
      • Dean’s Office
      • Management
      • Distinguished Fellows
      • Faculty and Research
      • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
      • Visiting Fellows
      • Adjunct Fellows
      • Administrative Staff
    • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
    • RSIS Endowment Fund
    • Endowed Professorships
    • Career Opportunities
    • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
    • Research Centres
      • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
      • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
      • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • About RSIS
      • Introduction
      • Building the Foundations
      • Welcome Message
      • Board of Governors
      • Staff Profiles
        • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
        • Dean’s Office
        • Management
        • Distinguished Fellows
        • Faculty and Research
        • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
        • Visiting Fellows
        • Adjunct Fellows
        • Administrative Staff
      • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
      • RSIS Endowment Fund
      • Endowed Professorships
      • Career Opportunities
      • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
      • Research Centres
        • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
        • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
        • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
    RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
    instagram instagram rsis.sg
      RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO12176 | A Regional Code of Conduct: For South and East China Seas
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO12176 | A Regional Code of Conduct: For South and East China Seas
    Yang Razali Kassim

    20 September 2012

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Synopsis

    ASEAN is moving into high gear to craft a regional code of conduct (COC) to address the disputes in the South China Sea. The COC could also be relevant to similar disputes in the East China Sea, including over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands between Japan and China.

    Commentary

    ASEAN IS displaying a sense of urgency to get the proposed regional Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea off the ground. The latest manifestation is a joint statement by Singapore and Vietnamese leaders last week. Following a visit on 14 September to Singapore, the General Secretary of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Nguyen Phu Trong, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stressed the importance of starting talks on the COC “as soon as possible”.

    The same urgency has been expressed in other regional capitals since ASEAN restored some of its dented credibility with a joint statement of principles on 26 July following the failure of the 45th ASEAN foreign ministers meeting (AMM) in Phnom Penh to issue a joint communique on the South China Sea disputes.

    Critical East Asia Summit

    The draft COC, which has been discussed by ASEAN in Phnom Penh, has to be negotiated with China and readied in time for the ASEAN Summits in November. ASEAN leaders will first meet among themselves, and then have back-to-back summits with their East Asian counterparts China, Japan and South Korea, as well as five other powers, including the United States. These key actors have stakes in a region that is currently roiling with tension over territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. An anti-Japan nationalist groundswell in China is threatening to escalate into a major confrontation between the two neighbours over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

    The coming ASEAN and East Asia Summits will therefore be the most critical gathering of regional leaders in years. They will affect regional peace and shape the security architecture of not just East Asia but also the wider Indo-Pacific region in view of the far reaching repercussions.

    With only three months to go, putting in place a COC process is vital – at least as a framework for negotiations. If managed sensitively, a code of conduct in the South China Sea has the potential to also become a template for dispute resolution in the East China Sea. The US, while declaring its neutrality, has warned of conflict breaking out in the event of a miscalculation over the Senkaku/Diaoyu disputes which could drag it in. Needless to say, the same apprehension lies behind the current rush in ASEAN for the much anticipated COC for the South China Sea.

    China in no hurry?

    But China, as a principal actor in the territorial disputes in both bodies of water and a key party to the regional COC with ASEAN, appears to be in no hurry. While on a visit to Jakarta as part of a regional trip on 11 August 2012, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said China was willing to work with ASEAN to implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). But at the same time, this exercise, he said, should be “on the basis of consensus” towards “the eventual adoption of the COC”. The Chinese foreign minister has reportedly also said that China would approach the COC “when the time is ripe”.

    In other words, whatever ASEAN comes up with to resolve the South China Sea disputes will not fly without the concurrence of China. Besides, before the COC is agreed, Beijing would prefer to focus on implementing the DOC – which is one significant step before the COC. Clearly, the COC negotiations will be tough and protracted. While ASEAN and others want to step on it, especially in view of the growing tensions in the region, China seems intent to bide its time.

    Key elements of Code of Conduct

    Unlike the DOC, the COC is supposed to be binding. But whether it will indeed be so is not a certainty. ASEAN has proposed key elements to reflect the underlying principles of peaceful resolution of disputes; conformity with international law; and mechanisms for dispute resolution and for monitoring the implementation of the code of conduct. By now the key elements would have been forwarded to China for consideration.

    But at what point should China come into the picture in the drafting of the COC? On 4 April 2012, the Philippines said only ASEAN members would be involved in the drafting. Indonesia’s foreign minister Marty Natalegawa, taking a different tack, said: “There will be constant communication through the ASEAN-China framework so that whatever final position ASEAN comes up with, (it) will have benefitted from some kind of communication with China as well.”

    From China’s perspective, the South China Sea disputes are best addressed within the framework of the ASEAN-China Summit track (ASEAN+1). In other words, even the drafting of the COC has to have Beijing’s concurrence. Dr Marty’s formulation of China’s entry into the drafting process is therefore a compromise: it allows ASEAN its own space to discuss what essentially is an internal affair that affects all of them – claimant state or not – while still exchanging notes with China as a negotiating partner.

    Deng Xiaoping Solution?

    As a confidence-building measure, a regional Code of Conduct actually fits in with China’s geo-strategy. It was the late Deng Xiaoping who came up with a formula to resolve competing claims over territory: Disputing parties should shelve their claims pending a resolution and in the meanwhile jointly develop the disputed areas. If Beijing does go for the so-called “Deng Xiaoping solution”, joint development will be one of the key elements in China’s version of the COC.

    This, however, does not mean it will be accepted by the ASEAN claimants. While the Deng formula is pragmatic, the underlying dispute over sovereignty will still be in the way. In fact, some of the ASEAN claimant states may have reservations about the “develop now, resolve later” approach. Acceptance, they fear, might imply recognition of China’s claim to the disputed areas.

    Regardless, moving from the DOC to the COC phase is critical if the region is to contain and defuse the current tensions in the South China Sea. Indeed, it may also have an effect on the tensions further north in the East China Sea that are calling out for cooler heads to prevail.

    About the Author

    Yang Razali Kassim is a Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

    Categories: Commentaries /

    Last updated on 29/09/2014

    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Synopsis

    ASEAN is moving into high gear to craft a regional code of conduct (COC) to address the disputes in the South China Sea. The COC could also be relevant to similar disputes in the East China Sea, including over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands between Japan and China.

    Commentary

    ASEAN IS displaying a sense of urgency to get the proposed regional Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea off the ground. The latest manifestation is a joint statement by Singapore and Vietnamese leaders last week. Following a visit on 14 September to Singapore, the General Secretary of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Nguyen Phu Trong, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stressed the importance of starting talks on the COC “as soon as possible”.

    The same urgency has been expressed in other regional capitals since ASEAN restored some of its dented credibility with a joint statement of principles on 26 July following the failure of the 45th ASEAN foreign ministers meeting (AMM) in Phnom Penh to issue a joint communique on the South China Sea disputes.

    Critical East Asia Summit

    The draft COC, which has been discussed by ASEAN in Phnom Penh, has to be negotiated with China and readied in time for the ASEAN Summits in November. ASEAN leaders will first meet among themselves, and then have back-to-back summits with their East Asian counterparts China, Japan and South Korea, as well as five other powers, including the United States. These key actors have stakes in a region that is currently roiling with tension over territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. An anti-Japan nationalist groundswell in China is threatening to escalate into a major confrontation between the two neighbours over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

    The coming ASEAN and East Asia Summits will therefore be the most critical gathering of regional leaders in years. They will affect regional peace and shape the security architecture of not just East Asia but also the wider Indo-Pacific region in view of the far reaching repercussions.

    With only three months to go, putting in place a COC process is vital – at least as a framework for negotiations. If managed sensitively, a code of conduct in the South China Sea has the potential to also become a template for dispute resolution in the East China Sea. The US, while declaring its neutrality, has warned of conflict breaking out in the event of a miscalculation over the Senkaku/Diaoyu disputes which could drag it in. Needless to say, the same apprehension lies behind the current rush in ASEAN for the much anticipated COC for the South China Sea.

    China in no hurry?

    But China, as a principal actor in the territorial disputes in both bodies of water and a key party to the regional COC with ASEAN, appears to be in no hurry. While on a visit to Jakarta as part of a regional trip on 11 August 2012, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said China was willing to work with ASEAN to implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). But at the same time, this exercise, he said, should be “on the basis of consensus” towards “the eventual adoption of the COC”. The Chinese foreign minister has reportedly also said that China would approach the COC “when the time is ripe”.

    In other words, whatever ASEAN comes up with to resolve the South China Sea disputes will not fly without the concurrence of China. Besides, before the COC is agreed, Beijing would prefer to focus on implementing the DOC – which is one significant step before the COC. Clearly, the COC negotiations will be tough and protracted. While ASEAN and others want to step on it, especially in view of the growing tensions in the region, China seems intent to bide its time.

    Key elements of Code of Conduct

    Unlike the DOC, the COC is supposed to be binding. But whether it will indeed be so is not a certainty. ASEAN has proposed key elements to reflect the underlying principles of peaceful resolution of disputes; conformity with international law; and mechanisms for dispute resolution and for monitoring the implementation of the code of conduct. By now the key elements would have been forwarded to China for consideration.

    But at what point should China come into the picture in the drafting of the COC? On 4 April 2012, the Philippines said only ASEAN members would be involved in the drafting. Indonesia’s foreign minister Marty Natalegawa, taking a different tack, said: “There will be constant communication through the ASEAN-China framework so that whatever final position ASEAN comes up with, (it) will have benefitted from some kind of communication with China as well.”

    From China’s perspective, the South China Sea disputes are best addressed within the framework of the ASEAN-China Summit track (ASEAN+1). In other words, even the drafting of the COC has to have Beijing’s concurrence. Dr Marty’s formulation of China’s entry into the drafting process is therefore a compromise: it allows ASEAN its own space to discuss what essentially is an internal affair that affects all of them – claimant state or not – while still exchanging notes with China as a negotiating partner.

    Deng Xiaoping Solution?

    As a confidence-building measure, a regional Code of Conduct actually fits in with China’s geo-strategy. It was the late Deng Xiaoping who came up with a formula to resolve competing claims over territory: Disputing parties should shelve their claims pending a resolution and in the meanwhile jointly develop the disputed areas. If Beijing does go for the so-called “Deng Xiaoping solution”, joint development will be one of the key elements in China’s version of the COC.

    This, however, does not mean it will be accepted by the ASEAN claimants. While the Deng formula is pragmatic, the underlying dispute over sovereignty will still be in the way. In fact, some of the ASEAN claimant states may have reservations about the “develop now, resolve later” approach. Acceptance, they fear, might imply recognition of China’s claim to the disputed areas.

    Regardless, moving from the DOC to the COC phase is critical if the region is to contain and defuse the current tensions in the South China Sea. Indeed, it may also have an effect on the tensions further north in the East China Sea that are calling out for cooler heads to prevail.

    About the Author

    Yang Razali Kassim is a Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

    Categories: Commentaries

    Last updated on 29/09/2014

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
    OK
    Latest Book
    CO12176 | A Regional Code of Conduct: For South and East China Seas

    Synopsis

    ASEAN is moving into high gear to craft a regional code of conduct (COC) to addr ...
    more info