ASEAN and the Major Powers in the South China Sea: the Role of Law, Diplomacy, and Deterrence in Moderating Sovereignty Claims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article focuses on the rising strategic significance of the South China Sea for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the major powers. It traces the origins of the South China Sea (SCS) dispute, and the claimants that are directly involved (China, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei). It then examines why balance of power considerations have influenced and continue to influence the role of regional states as well as the major external powers (China, United States, India, and Japan, together with other interested middle powers such as Australia and Canada). It argues that the SCS is an international maritime regime (global commons), and therefore subject to the principles and practice of International Law, specifically United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Any attempt at nationalisation of the SCS will be rejected under international law, as evidenced by the 2016 decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), with respect to the submission in 2013 by the Philippines on its dispute with China, for compulsory arbitration by the The Hague Court. It notes the lack of unity in ASEAN over how to deal with China’s assertive conduct in the SCS. It suggests that only a dynamic balance of power approach, which includes external power engagement with regional interests, will create the necessary space for diplomacy and dialogue by upholding the primacy of the rule of law, freedom of the open seas, and the legitimate rights and interests of all claimant states. It concludes that law, politics, diplomacy, and deterrence are interactive variables requiring strategic management to promote shared interests, stability and security in the South China Sea.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".