남중국해 해양분쟁과 국제법

Abstract

The South China Sea, through which about 30 percent of global maritime trade passes, is a strategic chokepoint that serves as a testing ground for both the security order in East Asia and the future of the international law of the sea. This study interprets the South China Sea dispute not merely as a territorial sovereignty issue but as a structural confrontation between two opposing values󰡈the “expansion of freedom” and the “expansion of sovereignty”󰡈arising from the ambiguities of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While the United States and Western maritime powers have emphasized the freedom of navigation and military activities as a manifestation of maritime openness, China and many developing coastal states have expanded their jurisdictional claims based on national security and resource management. Such dual tendencies raise a fundamental question regarding where the boundary lies between the freedom of the seas and coastal states’ sovereignty. Building on this framework, this paper first examines the structure and evolution of the South China Sea dispute, including the legal status of maritime features, artificial island construction, the South China Sea arbitral awards, and freedom of navigation operations. Second, it analyzes major legal issues, such as the legal status of maritime features (islands, rocks, low-tide elevations, and artificial islands), the innocent passage of warships, military activities and marine scientific research (MSR) within the foreign exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and China’s claim of “historic rights” represented by the nine-dash line. Third, based on these analyses, this paper explores how the ambiguities of UNCLOS have caused interpretative confusion and considers the potential development of customary international law that could supplement such gaps. It particularly highlights that advances in artificial intelligence (AI), and science and technology have intensified the security concerns of coastal states, thereby reshaping the scope of military activities within the EEZ and the interpretation of MSR. Furthermore, this paper views UNCLOS as a “living treaty” and thus argues that the ambiguities of its provisions can be clarified through multilateral processes, such as the Meeting of States Parties (SPLOS), the International Law Commission (ILC), and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), while bilateral arrangements, such as a U.S.󰡈China joint declaration, could also complement these efforts. Ultimately, the South China Sea dispute serves as a testing ground for the effectiveness and flexibility of international law, illustrating whether the Convention can evolve from a product of political compromise into a dynamic normative order that adapts to technological developments and changing state practice. In conclusion, this study offers a comprehensive legal perspective on the South China Sea dispute, aiming to elucidate the complex legal structures and interpretative dynamics underlying it. Moreover, it seeks to make the content and analytical framework of international law accessible to researchers in adjacent fields such as political science and international relations, with the hope that international law studies will expand through interdisciplinary dialogue and contribute to a broader understanding of global maritime governance.