U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations in South China Sea: An Ongoing Riddle between the United States and China
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The United States and China’s antithetical stances on freedom of navigation in the South China Sea have consistently caused military tensions in East Asia. Based on employing the crisis bargaining theory, this article postulates that the United States and China are able to implement a hard-line strategy or an accommodative strategy in dealing with the controversial freedom of navigation issue in the South China Sea. This article categorizes each country’s strategies in a 2x2 model and examines four different cases for exploring each country’s payoffs: Case (1) the United States and China can both use force; Case (2) the United States can make unilateral concessions and China can hold its original demands; Case (3) China can make unilateral concessions and the United States can hold its original demands; and Case (4) the United States and China can make strategic compromises to avoid military clashes. This article maintains that the United States and China will choose both accommodative strategies in order to avoid open military conflicts. This article also contends that unilateral concessions either from the United States or China will harshly damage one side’s interest, thereby both countries will not choose unilateral concessions as a plausible option. In addition, both countries’ use of force is the most unlikely option.
Abstract
The United States and China’s antithetical stances on freedom of navigation in the South China Sea have consistently caused military tensions in East Asia. Based on employing the crisis bargaining theory, this article postulates that the United States and China are able to implement a hard-line strategy or an accommodative strategy in dealing with the controversial freedom of navigation issue in the South China Sea. This article categorizes each country’s strategies in a 2x2 model and examines four different cases for exploring each country’s payoffs: Case (1) the United States and China can both use force; Case (2) the United States can make unilateral concessions and China can hold its original demands; Case (3) China can make unilateral concessions and the United States can hold its original demands; and Case (4) the United States and China can make strategic compromises to avoid military clashes. This article maintains that the United States and China will choose both accommodative strategies in order to avoid open military conflicts. This article also contends that unilateral concessions either from the United States or China will harshly damage one side’s interest, thereby both countries will not choose unilateral concessions as a plausible option. In addition, both countries’ use of force is the most unlikely option.
참고문헌 (48)
- U.S. Department of Defense, "Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015" (2015), U.S. Department of Defense
- Maritime territorial and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) disputes involving China: Issues for Congress, "Ronald O’Rourke", Congressional Research Service, 12~, pp.CRS Report No. R42784 (2014)
- Jeff M. Smith, "Maritime Security in Indo–Pacific: Perspective from China, India, and the United States", pp.131~133 (2014), Rowman & Littlefield
- Russell J. Leng, "Reciprocating influence strategies in interstate crisis bargaining", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(1), pp.5~ (1993)
- Glenn Herald Snyder, "Conflict among nations: Bargaining, decision making, and system structure in international crises", pp.40~ (1977), Princeton University Press
- Russell J. Leng, "Interstate Crisis behavior, 1816–1980: Realism versus Reciprocity", pp.200~ (1993), Cambridge University Press
- Dennis Mandsager, "The U.S. Freedom of Navigation Program: Policy, Procedure, and Future", International law Studies, 72, pp.116~ (1997)
- Avery Goldstein, "First things First: The Pressing Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S.–China Relations", International Security, 37(4), pp.56~ (2013)
- Dennis Mandsager, "The U.S. Freedom of Navigation Program", pp.117~
- "Japan" (2015)[URL]
- "Joint Statement of the Security Consultative Committee: A Stronger Alliance for a Dynamic Security Environment the New Guidelines for U.S.–Japan Defense Cooperation" (2015)[URL]
- "Top ten ASEAN trade partner countries/regions 2015" (2016)[URL]
- Christopher Layne, "From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing: America’s Future Grand Strategy", International Security, 22(1), pp.86~124 (1997)
- Hillary Clinton, "America’s Pacific Century", pp.188~ (2011), Foreign Policy
- Mira Rapp-Hooper, "Confronting China in the South China Sea", Foreign Affairs, 95(2) (2016)
- Alfred Thayer Mahan, "The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783" (2015), Dossier Press
- "The South China Sea is Really a fishery dispute" (2016)[URL]
- "South China Sea" (2013)[URL]
- Taylor M. Fravel, "China’s strategy in the South China Sea", Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 33(3), pp.303~ (2011)
- Adam Greer, "The South China Sea is Really a fishery dispute"
- Taylor M. Fravel, "China’s strategy in the South China Sea", pp.303~304
- David B. Larter, "4-star admiral wants to confront China. The White House says not so fast, September 26, 2016", Navytimes, ~ (2016)
- Ben Blanchard, "Freedom of navigation patrols may end ‘in disaster’: Chinese admiral, July 18, 2016.", Reuters, ~ (2016)
- Ben Blanchard, "Give them a bloody nose’: Xi pressed for stronger South China Sea response, July 31, 2016.", Reuters, ~ (2016)
- James D. Fearon, "Rationalist explanations for war", International Organization, 49(3), pp.380~ (1995)
- Katherine Barbieri, "Economic Interdependence: A path to peace or a source of interstate conflict", Journal of Peace Research, 33(1), pp.29~49 (1996)
- John R. O’Neal, "The classical liberals were right: Democracy, Interdependence, and conflict, 1950–1985", International Studies Quarterly, 41(2), pp.267~293 (1997)
- James N. Rosecrance, "Interdependence and Conflict in World Politics", pp.48~57 (1989), Avebury
- Erik Gartzke, "Investing in the Peace: Economic interdependence and international conflict", International Organization, 55(2), pp.418~ (2001)
- Aaron L. Friedberg, "The future of US–China relations: Is conflict inevitable", International Security, 30(2), pp.13~ (2005)
- Scott Douglas Sagan, "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate" (2013), WW Norton & Company
- Avery Goldstein, "First things first", pp.79~
- Jan Van Tol, "Air Sea Battle: A point-of-Departure Operational Concept", pp.xi~ (2010), Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
- Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments involving the People’s Republic of China 2015, "U.S. Department of Defense", 33~34 (2015)
- China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities- Background and Issues for Congress, "Ronald O’Rourke", Congressional Research Service, 12~, pp.CRS Report No. RL33513 (2016)
- Roger Cliff, "Anti-Access Measures in Chinese Defense Strategy", pp.3~ (2011), Rand Corporation
- Stephen Biddle, "Future Warfare in the Western Pacific: Chinese Anti-access", Area Denial, US Air Sea Battle, and Command of the Commons in East Asia, 2016, pp.41(1), 7~
- Jack Snyder, "Ethnic Conflict and International Security", pp.79~101 (1993), Princeton University Press
- Yanqi Tong, "Social Protest in Contemporary China, 2003–2010" (2014), Routledge
- Martin Feldstein, "China’s Biggest Problem Are Political, Not Economic", Wall Street Journal (2012)
- Jessica Chen Weiss, "Powerful patriots: nationalist protest in China’s foreign relations", pp.34~ (2014), Oxford University Press
- "In 1982 the Soviet Union passed the Law on the State Border and in 1983 the Soviet Union passed the Soviet Navigation Rules", ~
- John W. Rolph, "Freedom of Navigation and the Black Sea bumping incident: How ‘Innocent’ must innocent passage be", Military Law Review, 135, pp.159~ (1992)
- U.S. Department of State, "Limits in the Seas No.122 United States Response to Excessive National Maritime Claims" (1992), U.S. Department of States
- "Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas" (1972)[URL]
- "Document: Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea" (2014)[URL]
- "Freedom of Navigation: An old issue and new approaches" (2014)[URL]
- Bonnie S. Glaser, "Armed Clash in the South China Sea", pp.8~ (2012), Council on Foreign Relations
