The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, on July 12 ruled in favor of the Philippines in a maritime dispute with China, concluding that China’s claims of historical rights over the bulk of the South China Sea were invalid.
So far commentaries have largely put emphasis on military, strategic and economic concerns. In fact, this arbitration award is not just an issue of geopolitics and sovereignty, but about the sustainability and wellbeing of our international commons.
The South China Sea is one of the most biodiverse areas on the planet — home to nearly 76 percent of the world’s coral species and 37 percent of the world’s reef fish. After consulting numerous experts and examining satellite imagery, the arbitral tribunal found that China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) had caused grave harm to the coral reef environment and fragile ecosystems.
In addition, the final ruling clearly said that Chinese authorities were “fully aware of” and “actively tolerated” Chinese fishermen using propellers to harvest endangered giant clams — a method that damages marine life. These activities violate China’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
University of Miami, Florida, marine biology professor John McManus has called upon China and other nations in the region to end their conflicting views over territory and declare the South China Sea a special protection zone, like the Antarctic Specially Protected Area.
This proposal is morally appreciated and theoretically possible under international law, but it might face practical difficulties in this case. In particular, the disputed area is strategically important for military forces, the transport of international trade and hydrocarbon drilling.
However, we should not overlook the role of environmental peace-building in post-conflict settings. More specifically, internationalized management of natural resources can provide a useful opportunity to build trust between nations. International environmental law could mainstream sustainable considerations into the post-conflict activities of nations and international organizations.
Successful examples include environmental cooperation on water resources as specifically addressed in Annex IV of the October 1994 peace agreement between Israel and Jordan. Peru and Ecuador jointly created and manage “peace parks” — ecological protection zones in the Cordillera del Condor, Ecuador — as part of efforts to end long-standing border disputes.
At the multinational level, the World Bank has established a Post-Conflict Fund to finance projects with environmental sustainability elements, such as the 2012 recovery plan of Mindanao in the Philippines. Furthermore, since 1999, the UN Environment Program’s Post Conflict and Disaster Management Branch has managed several post-crisis environmental assessments in Afghanistan, Nigeria, Congo, Syria and the Balkans. These types of environmental assessments are sometimes explicitly featured in international litigation documents.
Overall, these efforts suggest that environmental considerations are continuously affecting peacemaking activities worldwide. Today, although Beijing has not addressed any environmental issue in its public statements, a multilateral action plan for South China Sea regional assessment and ecological restoration should be included in the post-arbitration negotiation agenda. Ultimately, international lawyers might not only defend the political interests of their nations, but also the beauty of our environment.
Yang Chung-han is a doctoral candidate researching international environmental law at the University of Cambridge and a member of the Taipei Bar Association.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS