The South China Sea dispute, rooted in overlapping territorial claims dating back to the colonial era, has long been a flashpoint. The 1990s saw the formation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) – a non-binding agreement amongst ASEAN nations – designed to manage tensions. However, Beijing’s unilateral actions, including the construction of artificial islands and subsequent military installations, fundamentally altered the strategic landscape and undermined the DOC’s utility. The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s 2016 ruling, which largely favored the Philippines’ claims, remains unrecognized by China, further exacerbating the situation. “The core issue isn’t just about the islands themselves,” stated Dr. Eleanor Miles, a senior researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “it’s about establishing a framework for managing access to vital maritime resources and projecting power in a contested region.”
Key stakeholders include China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and ASEAN as a whole. China, possessing significantly greater naval and economic power, views the COC as a means to effectively control the South China Sea, safeguarding its strategic interests and projecting influence. Beijing’s actions—including increased naval patrols, the deployment of advanced weaponry, and the continued expansion of its island infrastructure—have prompted defensive responses from other claimants and attracted scrutiny from the United States and its allies. The Philippines, under President Duterte, has adopted a strategy of “strategic ambiguity,” prioritizing economic cooperation with China over assertive claims, a move viewed critically by the US. Vietnam, facing similar pressure, continues to build its naval capabilities and maintains support from Washington. Malaysia and Brunei primarily seek to safeguard their maritime rights and access to vital fishing grounds.
Data from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) indicates that China’s military spending has risen dramatically over the past two decades, reaching an estimated $292 billion in 2023. Simultaneously, ASEAN nations have invested heavily in bolstering their maritime security capabilities, driven partly by concerns about China’s increasing dominance. Recent developments, including January’s joint military exercises between China and the Philippines, and the continued dredging and construction activities around disputed reefs, paint a picture of escalating tensions. A recent report by the International Crisis Group highlighted the vulnerability of maritime security in the region, stating, “The absence of a COC creates a vacuum that is being increasingly filled by assertive behavior, significantly raising the risk of miscalculation and conflict.”
Looking ahead, the next six months are likely to see continued diplomatic maneuvering, albeit with little substantive progress on the COC. Beijing will likely continue to consolidate its control over the disputed areas, while other claimant states will likely bolster their defensive postures. The 2026 deadline for COC completion, already slipping, is increasingly unlikely to be met, solidifying the status quo. Long-term, the situation could lead to a further deterioration of regional security, potentially triggering localized conflicts over resources or disputed maritime zones.
Within 5-10 years, several potential scenarios exist. The most likely is a protracted stalemate, with China maintaining de facto control of the South China Sea, while ASEAN nations continue to navigate the complexities of the situation. Alternatively, a significant miscalculation – perhaps a naval incident near a contested feature – could trigger a wider crisis. The potential for involvement by major powers – the United States, Japan, and Australia – adds another layer of complexity, raising the prospect of proxy conflicts and increased military presence in the region.
The impasse in the South China Sea serves as a potent reminder of the fragility of international agreements and the enduring challenges of managing territorial disputes. The current situation demands a renewed commitment to diplomacy, coupled with a robust strategy for deterring aggressive behavior. The question remains: will regional actors prioritize a long-term solution focused on stability, or will they succumb to short-sighted strategic calculations that ultimately jeopardize the security of the South China Sea and, by extension, the broader international community? The absence of a clear resolution compels a deeper reflection on the enduring consequences of unchecked ambition and the urgent need for collaborative governance in contested spaces.