• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "C. Raja Mohan"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie India"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "India",
    "East Asia",
    "China",
    "Southeast Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Global Governance",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie India

Raja-Mandala: Drawing a Line in the Sea

China’s rejection of international arbitration raises questions. Delhi’s reaction must focus on need to de-escalate conflict in South China Sea.

Link Copied
By C. Raja Mohan
Published on Jul 12, 2016

Source: Indian Express

Tuesday’s ruling on the South China Sea disputes by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague is bound to mark a definitive moment in the evolution of international maritime law and Asia’s geopolitical order. It will also highlight India’s own stakes in promoting peace and stability in the contested waters of the South China Sea.

More than three years ago, the Philippines, which was locked in an escalating territorial dispute with China over the Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, decided to go court. China refused to participate in the proceedings at The Hague and called them a “farce”. Beijing has declared it will not accept the ruling from the PCA.

In anticipation of the award this week, China has launched naval exercises in the South China Sea. It has embarked on a massive political campaign to challenge the legitimacy of the arbitration and defend its expansive claims over the South China Sea.

China’s so-called nine-dashed line in the South China Sea constitutes a claim for nearly 90 per cent of its waters. Its claims clash with those of its neighbours including Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia.

Amidst the widespread expectation that the PCA award is likely to go largely against China on a range of legal issues involved, Beijing has warned other powers against meddling in South China Sea affairs. It has pressed many countries, big and small, to express public support for its position on South China Sea.

Maritime disputes are not new in East Asia; they are indeed a legacy from the ambiguous territorial settlements that followed the Second World War. The growing regional economic integration and the normalisation of China’s relations with most Asian countries after the Sino-US rapprochement in the 1970s seemed to create a framework for pragmatic management of disputes. A number of reasons, however, have turned the dormant disputes into dangerous flash points.

For one, the resources of these waters — from fisheries to minerals and hydrocarbons — have acquired greater economic significance. For another, the growing prosperity in Asia has brought forth resurgent nationalism that is willing to aggressively pursue territorial claims rather than find compromises. The shifting balance of military power between China and the US, and the expanding naval capabilities across Asia have added to this turbulence.

In the era after the Second World War, most Asian conflicts expressed themselves as land wars — in Korea, in Vietnam, in the subcontinent and on China’s borders with India, Russia and Vietnam. The locus of inter-state conflict has now shifted to the sea and is visible in the intensifying maritime tensions between China and its East Asian neighbours, especially Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines.

These maritime disputes threaten regional peace at precisely the moment when the seas have become lifelines for Asian well-being and prosperity.

That South China Sea is one of the busiest maritime thoroughfares in the world underlines the depth of Asia’s economic globalisation.

China’s rejection of the PCA arbitration raises fundamental questions about the future of maritime rule of law in the South China Sea. Some of the core tenets of the law of the sea — for example, the idea that “oceans belong to every one” — emerged in this part of the world amidst the need to regulate the rivalry in the East between the European powers four centuries ago.

That the waters of the South China Sea might be enclosed today by a rising China has sent a chill down the spine of Asia. The hope that regional institutions will help dampen the territorial conflict between China and its neighbours has been dashed. The Association of South East Asian Nations, for example, has become increasingly divided between those who have a direct territorial dispute with China and those who don’t.

The contestation has inevitably drawn in the US. For Washington it is a question of the credibility of its alliances with the Asian neighbours of China and its traditional role in defending the maritime commons. The US Navy has begun to conduct freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea in the teeth of opposition from China.

Washington has urged Beijing to show respect for international law and abide by the PCA ruling. The US has also pointed to the example of India, which accepted two years ago the award from the PCA in the maritime territorial dispute filed by Bangladesh.

Whether Delhi wants it or not, its reaction to The Hague ruling will be closely watched. Some Chinese analysts worry that India might take a hard line on the South China Sea as a tit for tat response to Beijing’s opposition that stalled India’s quest for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group last month. Many in Delhi would want India to speak up; others would say India has no dog in this fight.

The fact, however, is that Delhi in recent years has often affirmed its growing interest in the South China Sea. Delhi’s reaction must necessarily focus on the merits of The Hague award and on the pressing political need to de-escalate the territorial conflict in the South China Sea.

This article originally appeared in the Indian Express.

About the Author

C. Raja Mohan

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India

A leading analyst of India’s foreign policy, Mohan is also an expert on South Asian security, great-power relations in Asia, and arms control.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Deepening the India-France Maritime Partnership

      C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah

  • Commentary
    Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi
      • Alexander Gabuev
      • +1

      Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …

C. Raja Mohan
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
SecurityGlobal GovernanceForeign PolicySouth AsiaIndiaEast AsiaChinaSoutheast Asia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Trump holding a glass of champagne up in a toast, with a table of guests in the foreground
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump Had the Chance to Address U.S.-China AI Safety. He Threw Xi a Party Instead.

    The summit may be remembered as a fatal blunder, when Washington, Beijing, and the AI industry collectively chose ceremony over action.

      • Jeffrey Prescott

      Jeffrey Prescott

  • Article
    Separable, not Separate: Governing Europe’s Collective Defense

    European NATO countries are wrestling with the possibility of U.S. disengagement from the alliance. With the continent’s security increasingly uncertain, governments must restore the credibility of their collective defense.

      Hans-Dieter Lucas, Adam Thomson, Pierre Vimont

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    International Demand for Russia’s Arctic Shipping Route Is Unlikely to Last

    Cargo traffic through Russia’s Northern Sea Route has increased because of the disruption caused by the conflict in the Middle East, the Ukraine war, and U.S.-China tensions.

      • Mikhail Korostikov

      Mikhail Korostikov

  • Tourists taking photos in front of the White House on a sunny day
    Paper
    Squandering Attraction: How the Second Trump Administration is Undermining American Soft Power

    Soft power on its own is insufficient to meet U.S. national security needs, but hard power also has its limits. Soft power allows for more effective and efficient use of hard power than hard power alone, as it encourages cooperation and compliance which deters the need for hard power.

      • Sarah Yerkes

      Sarah Yerkes

  • Close-up of Lithium-Ion Battery Pack
    Research
    Battery Ecosystems: A Comparative Analysis of Lithium-Ion Tech Policy

    A deep dive into the policy ecosystems behind battery development in China, South Korea, Japan, the European Union (including some of its member states), the United States, Canada, and India.

      • +5

      Milo McBride, Herbert Crowther, Darcie Draudt-Véjares, …

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.