ucmun · 2020-01-25 · reworked. the scope of the ilc's work is large and far-reaching,...

UCMUN 2017 International Law Commission

Welcome, delegates! My name is Walter Dodson and I am the director of the International Law Commission for the University of Connecticut Model United Nations 2017. I cannot be happier to be your director for this upcoming conference. The ILC was created to maintain peace by way of making international law understood by all nations so conflict could be avoided. The topics that we will be discussing are critical to maintaining peace and cooperation across the world. The international problems that we will be trying to solve are “Territorial Rights in the Arctic” and “Chinese Construction in the South China Sea.” I would like to remind the delegates that the point of the United Nations is to foster international cooperation and create a sense of community that can be felt around the world. During debate, I am expecting the delegates to respect one another and to be prepared to work together.

I am currently pursuing a degree in Political Science with a double minor in French and Chinese and am in my Sophomore year at UConn. The high school I attended was very small, and as such we did not have model UN. During my freshman year at UConn, I got involved with UCMUN as an Assistant Director for the UN Development Programme and I am so thrilled to be coming back for another year. Here at UConn, I am heavily involved in political activism and am the Vice-Chair of UConn PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) and am currently the campaign coordinator for our 100% Clean Energy Campaign. When I am not at UConn, I am sailing during the summer and skiing during the winter.

I encourage all delegates to not be shy during debate and truly speak their mind. That being said, I would once again like to ask the delegates to show respect for each other, myself, other UCMUN staff and for the University of Connecticut. I cannot wait to meet all of you and go huskies. With Thanks, Walter Winslow Dodson UCMUN 2017 ILC Director [email protected]


Committee History:

Established in 1947, The International Law Commission is a branch of the United

Nations General Assembly whose origins can be found in the League of Nations. On the 22

December 1924, the League of Nations established a 17-member Committee of Experts for the

Progressive Codification of International Law. This committee was established to make

recommendations on issues and topics that required the intervention of international law.

Resolution 94 of the UN was passed 11 December 1946, stating that a committee should be

convened to make recommendations to the General Assembly and the Secretary-General on

ways in which the body could “encourage the progressive development of international law and

its codification" (United Nations, “International Law”).

As it stands today, the ILC has 34 members, though they are not national delegations to

the UN. The General Assembly votes on a list of nominees provided by individual UN member

states. All nominees are experts in international law. The primary purpose of the Commission is

enacted when a requested to act by is brought forth by the General Assembly. In this case, a

special reporter is appointed by the Commission to create a plan of action, and the governments

involved in the issue write their respective stances on the matter. The same reporter then shares

his or her own opinion on what action should be taken. In order for the reporter's work to

become an official ILC document, it must be approved by both the remainder of the commission

and the Secretary-General. Following this, the same governments that wrote opinion pieces must

craft new responses to the official ILC document, necessary for when the report is revisited and

reworked.

The scope of the ILC's work is large and far-reaching, dealing with territorial


disagreements, nationality issues, treaty law and obligations, and international criminal

jurisdiction. At the 68th session held from 2 May to 10 June and from 4 July to 12 August 2016,

the ILC dealt with the protection of persons in the event of disasters, crimes against humanity,

and the protection of the atmosphere. Due to the vast range of topics that are covered by the

organization, its success and endurance are essential to international prosperity.

Works Cited

“International Law, Codification, Legal Affairs, Commission, ILC, Instruments and

Reports, Yearbook.” United Nations. United Nations, 15 July 2015. Web. 01 Feb. 2017.


Committee Simulation:

The Role of the Delegates

A successful conference cannot take place without active and participatory delegates.

Participation in committee is essential and takes the form of engaged, persuasive debate with

other delegates through informed speech and writing. Delegates are expected to have thoroughly

and accurately researched the position of their respective country ahead of time; knowledge of

current refugee policy is most important but must be accompanied by an understanding of bloc

positions, history, and cultural ideologies. As such, any resolution that is passed by the

committee must be representative of the positions of the countries sponsoring it.

Background research is clearly not only crucial for a realistic debate but for a successful

committee. Delegates should keep in mind, however, that drafting a resolution is not a simple

process, requiring extensive negotiation and structured arguments. Of course, other complicating

factors such as political alliances, social and cultural viewpoints, and funding make the writing

of resolutions even more challenging. Like any form of negotiation, an impressive debate must

draw on compromise and a wide range of knowledge, skills that any accomplished delegate

needs.

That being said, there are rules within this committee and the conference as a whole that must be

followed. While proper parliamentary procedure and decorum must be maintained throughout all

committee sessions, it is even more important that delegates have respect for themselves, those

around them, the staff, and the international issues at hand. Following these rules will make


UCMUN more enjoyable for everyone, especially as a learning conference. This conference is

supposed to be fun, and it will be as long as delegates act appropriately and respectfully.

The Role of the Dias

The Director and the Assistant Directors will form the Dias. They are obligated to maintain a

structured, appropriate debate; they will accomplish this by establishing and keeping committee

rules as well as ensuring delegate participation. More specifically, the Dais is responsible for

setting debate, ending debate, and voting procedure. All members of the Dais are also available

as a resource that delegates may approach with any questions regarding parliamentary procedure,

the topics being discussed, or the conference in general.


Topic A: Territorial Rights in the Arctic Introduction:

When the first explorers came to the New World, they were in search of a faster route to

India, China, and the rest of Asia in order to trade spices and other resources. When they

realized that they had "discovered" another continent, they attempted to circumnavigate it in an

effort to locate the rumored “Northwest Passage." The Northwest Passage was the supposed sea

route that went through the Canadian Arctic that went above the continent and provided a fast

route to the Pacific and thus, Asia. After years of searching and heavy losses, though, it was

concluded that no such passage existed. It is now known that there is no way to traverse arctic

waters due to the presence of thick sea ice. However, in the last 100 years the Arctic Circle has

seen an unprecedented rise in temperature that. This has caused the formerly unbreakable sea ice

to almost completely disappear, thus opening the Arctic to navigation. The Arctic has many

kinds of resources that the nations of the world are now vying for, including oil deposits, fishing

grounds and shipping lanes. As such, a vast number of international relations experts believe that

the Arctic will become the site of some of the globe's most contentious political fights in the

coming decades.

History and Description of the Issue:

The first exploration of the Arctic was undertaken by the ancient Greeks in 330 B.C.E.;

Pytheas of Massalia made the voyage, seeing Britain and the northern Scottish seas and

documenting for the first time the aurora borealis of sea ice (Polar Discovery, 2006). The Arctic

then remained relatively untouched by global powers until the 16th century, with the beginning of

the exploration of the new world. As already mentioned, most expeditions were based on the


search for a Northwest Passage; an easier and faster sea route to Asia would be an enormous

boon to the nation that discovered and controlled it. The English were at the forefront of the

discovery attempts, recruiting William Edward Parry, an explorer who tried three times

unsuccessfully to locate the passage. On his third attempt, he and his crew were forced to winter

in the Arctic due to the thick Ice. When the ice had melted enough to allow the ships to move

through, one of the vessels ran aground and he was forced to consolidate his entire crew on the

other vessel and return to England (William Edward Parry, 2016). The arctic has been seen as an

indomitable region for years, yet the failures of these expeditions only contributed to its allure.

Figure 1.1 A Map from 1772 showing what was the assumed land mass of North America with

no route to Asia. Source: Library of Congress.

In recent years, the rate of warming in the Arctic has been nearly double that of the rest

of the world, according to Rick Spinrad, the chief scientific officer at the National Oceanic and


Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Arctic Temperature Rising, 2015). This development has

been the result of warming ocean waters and increased air temperature. The warming that we are

seeing has been caused by the increase in

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that has

accumulated since the Industrial Revolution in the

19th century. Unfortunately, these have an

amplified effect on the Arctic due to the albedo

effect that ice has on incoming sun rays. The

albedo effect is the ability of ice and snow,

attributable to their light color, to reflect some of

the sun’s rays back into space and thus absorb little heat. Consequently, when ice melts, the

albedo effect goes down in strength, causing ice loss at an even higher rate (Reflections on a

Changing Arctic, 2013). This increased temperature is causing a large majority of the ice in the

arctic to melt at an unprecedented rate. The

concerning and most telling indicator of Arctic

temperature rise is the amount of multi-year ice.

Multi-year ice is formed during the winter of one

season and lasts throughout the summer of the

next This ice is usually thicker and stronger than

other types, hovering over the central Arctic

Ocean and making any sea route difficult to

navigate. This multi-year ice is melting very fast, and even in the last 30 years it has almost


completely

disappeared (The Arctic’s Oldest Ice, 2016). This multi-year ice can only be broken by a few

ships, known as Polar Class Vessels, around the world, and these are typically only held by the

states bordering and dominating the Arctic. However, since the ice has dropped dramatically in

size and strength, these vessels are no longer exclusively required, which is why more nations

are seeking access to the Arctic.

The nations of the Arctic are those that have

territory in the Arctic Circle and coastline on

the Arctic Ocean. From West to East these

nations are the United States of America,

Canada, Denmark (by way of Greenland),

Norway, and Russia. These nations are the

primary players involved in the territorial

disputes documented in the Arctic. The issue

of territorial rights in the Arctic stems from the

claims of the Arctic 5 established with the

United Nations Convention on the Law of

Seas (UNCLOS). According to UNCLOS,

every nation around the world that has

territory on a coast has a 12 nautical mile

breadth outward from the coastline that is

defined as the territory of that nation. In addition, nations also have 200 nautical miles from the


coastline that is defined as that nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) where only that nation is

allowed to conduct commerce like fishing, drilling etc.. These laws work are rarely disputed

around the world, though the Arctic, due to its close territorial proximity to many nations, is

home to more conflicts. (see figure 1.4). Although UNCLOS initially seems very

comprehensive, problems arise when EEZs and territorial boundaries must be distinguished.

Another problem emerges from an article dictated in UNCLOS that refers to the extent of a

nation’s continental shelf. According to UNCLOS, “For the purposes of this Convention, the

coastal State shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the margin extends

beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is

measured…”(1982). This means that if a nation can prove that its continental shelf extends past

the standard EEZ, that same territory is theirs and must be included in said EEZ. Since some

nations can claim that their continental shelf extends into another nation's EEZ, what should be

the ILC's official protocol? It is the goal of this committee to resolve disputes regarding the

boundaries of EEZs in the increasingly accessible Arctic Ocean.

Current Status:

For the most part, the nations that are party to UNCLOS have agreed to established

EEZ’s, but there are exceptions. The United States and Canada have a long-standing territorial

dispute in the Arctic Ocean, specifically in the Beaufort Sea. The Canadian government believes

that the land-based territorial boundary should be extended into the sea which would be a

continuation of the boundary between Canadian Yukon and US Alaska. This assertion is based

on the Treaty of Saint Petersburg of 1825, which states that:

“The United Kingdom and the Russian Empire signed the Treaty of Saint Petersburg,


officially the Convention Concerning the Limits of Their Respective Possessions on the Northwest Coast of America and the Navigation of the Pacific Ocean. The treaty defined the boundary between Russian America and British North America as longitude 141° west except in south where it followed the coastal mountains from 56° north to 54°40' north” (Omniatlas).

However, the conflict remains that the United States thinks its boundary should extend into the

Canadian EEZ because of the 200 nautical mile limit from their coast. The US thinks this is the

case because it more accurately represents current territorial holdings. The interpretation by the

Canadian Parliament is as follows: “It (United States) argues that the boundary must preferably

be determined by using the equidistance principle – i.e., the tracing of a line at equal distance

from the closest land point of each state, which reflects more closely the direction of the

respective coastlines” (Dufrense, 2008). This would result in a triangular piece of territory that

would cut into the Yukon EEZ and have 21,440 square kilometers.

In addition, the Canadian government has acknowledged the Northwest Passage to be an

internal waterway. This draws conflict from the international community, because the strait

would open up new and improved shipping lanes from Europe to the Asia. The implications of

the straight being considered a Canadian waterway would result in all the laws and regulations of

Canada being applied to the straight and policed by the government. This would also mean that

ships wishing to use the strait for passage would have to submit their requests to the Canadian

government. The environmental implication of the internal waterway would be vast, as well.

This is one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the world, and making the waterway

internal would give the Canadian military the ability to protect and enforce whatever

environmental policies the nation enacts..

Another substantial claim to Arctic territory has come from the Danish. The Danish have


made the assertion that Greenland’s own underwater land mass forms the Lomonosov Ridge

which runs across the Arctic Ocean. The Associated Press reported that:

“From 2007 to 2012, Danish scientists, with colleagues from Canada, Sweden and Russia, surveyed a 1,240-mile-long underwater mountain range that runs north of Siberia, concluding that Greenland, a semi autonomous Danish territory, is geologically attached to the ridge” (December, 2014). These claims are made not for economic reasons but to instead “to shore up its popularity in

independence-seeking Greenland, where the claim is ‘very, very popular’” (Barkman). While

many consider this to be a symbolic gesture towards Greenland, it could stir up many more

conflicts than intended.

The Russian Federation has also staked a claim to the North Pole. To prove its

dominance in the region, an expedition led by famed Soviet explorer and current Russian

scientist Artur Chilingarov planted a titanium flag on the seafloor directly on the North Pole.

This gesture was merely symbolic, but it nonetheless resulted in a race to the Arctic. In early

2016, the Russian Federation submitted a claim to a very large swath of land that formally

includes the North Pole. With an increase in territorial claims comes an increase in military

presence. During a NATO patrol of the Baltic sea and region, two Russian jets were seen in the

area and that has many NATO allies spooked, but not surprised given the new submission.

Bloc Positions:

An integral part in solving the problems that are present in the Arctic will be based on a

form of bilateral communication and negotiation between the nations involved. These guidelines

have already been set by UNCLOS, though nations do and will stand opposed to parts of this

convention.


The Canadians have made their terms very clear on each of the matters at hand. They

stand very firm on the fact that the Northwest Passage is one of their internal waterways and thus

they will exercise their sovereign right over that water. The Beaufort Sea remains an interesting

talking point between the US and Canada; due to the nature of the talks, however, the Canadian

government still insists that the maritime border between Yukon and Alaska follow the 141st

meridian. And finally, the Canadians are also asserting their own claim to the North Pole by way

of arguing that the “Lomonosov and Alpha-Mendeleyev Ridges, underwater mountain ranges

stretching under the Arctic Ocean from Canada to Russia, are submarine elevations, this giving

them the right…” (Petty Officer Third Class Michael Anderson).

Denmark is the only nation other than the Russian Federation and Canada to submit a

claim over the North Pole. Although many consider the act to be a gesture of goodwill to the

autonomous territory of Greenland and showing the people and their government that the

Kingdom of Denmark stands behind them.

In a much more serious claim, the Russians will remain firm on their beliefs and will

likely fight tooth and nail for what they believe belongs to them. This is even more relevant

given the increasing tension between Russia and the West. The Arctic is the top of the world and

therefore provides very strategic territory in the event that Moscow perceives threat and would

like to act on it. This has once again made other nations wary that Russia would be in prime

positioning for an attack.

The United States of America will remain dedicated to making sure that the Russians do

not get the full extent of their claim because if the Russian claim is granted, it would give the

Russians a direct line of fire to the US homeland. The main area of dispute for the US has been


the Beaufort Sea with Canada. The US may have a very solid claim in terms of EEZ boundaries,

but it is also beholden to the boundaries that were established by the treaty of Saint Petersburg.

In regards to the Northwest Passage, the United States would very much like to see that straight

opened up for easy access to the Arctic by way of Alaska and it would provide a much faster

route to get their ships in Alaska to the shipbreaking yards in Maine and Norfolk, Virginia. They

are not the only nations that have issue with the Canadians making this claim to the passage.

The People’s Republic of China has been made an Arctic observer state as of May 2013.

This has been a goal in terms of China’s interest and movement into discussions involving the

Arctic. China’s interest in the Arctic is based around two points, the first being access to the

large quantities of fish in the region that are vital to its economy. The second reason is their

access to the Northwest Passage. If the passage was opened to international waters, it would

mean that Chinese ships could sail directly to Europe, cutting anywhere from 8,000 to 15,000

miles off their current voyage. This has also been a primary interest for India, Italy, Singapore,

South Korea and Japan who were all granted observer status in Arctic discussions. These nations

are all in the top 20 for maritime shipping.

Committee Mission:

When considering the legality of each nation’s claims to the Arctic, it is important to

consider both the science behind each assertion and the rules and regulations outlined in

UNCLOS. The Arctic is the newest territory to be opened to the world since the Antarctic, and

this has been even more contentious due to the proximity to so many important and influential

nations. Since the effects of the recommendations this council will not only effect the Arctic


five, but the entirety of the world, it is important to have a global perspective even when it does

not concern one's own nation.

Questions to Consider:

1. Where does your nation get its energy from (e.g. oil, coal, natural gas)?

2. How many exports does your nation ship abroad?

3. How will territorial claims in the Arctic directly impact your nation for the better?

4. What resources could your nation gain from making a claim to the Arctic?

5. Where are your allies located and how might their sovereignty be affected by a change in

current territorial allocations?

6. Which states should have a say in these kinds of territorial deliberations?


Works Cited

"The Arctic's Oldest Ice Is Vanishing | NOAA Climate.gov." The Arctic's Oldest Ice Is

Vanishing | NOAA Climate.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 13

Dec. 2016. Web. 07 Mar. 2017.

NOAA gave a great explanation of melting sea ice and had very good visuals. I used the

visuals to show a comparison between the first documented year and this past year. The

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association is owned and operated by the federal

government and is a very reliable source.

Barkham, Patrick. "Why Does Denmark Think It Can Lay Claim to the North Pole?" The

Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 Dec. 2014. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

The Guardian is a reliable newspaper published in Manchester, England. This article

shows the main reasons why Denmark is making this claim and shows the importance of

the claim, or the lack thereof.

DuFresne, Robert. "Canada and the United States: Arctic Sovereignty." CA-US-Arctic

Sovereignty/prb0834. Parliament of Canada, 2008. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.

This article gives the official view of the Canadian government’s stance on the dispute in

the Beaufort Sea. Coming from the Canadian Parliament, the validity of this source is

very good.


Ghose, Tia. "Arctic Temperatures Rising at Breakneck Speed." LiveScience. Purch, 16 Dec.

2015. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.

Live Science is an online science news magazine that publishes scientific breakthroughs

and other science news. The article shows the reasons behind the faster than normal

warming and the consequences that will follow.

Guilford, Gwynn. "What Is China's Arctic Game Plan?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company,

16 May 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

The article shows the current status of the Chinese government’s involvement in the

arctic and why they want more of a say on the international level. The graphics that are

included show the shipping lanes and potential fishing grounds that are involved.

"Historical Atlas of the Arctic (28 February 1825): Anglo-Russian Convention."Omniatlas.

Omniatlas, 2011. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.

This article gives an indepth analysis of the Anglo-Russian Convention and the

treaties and terms that were in it. It gives dates, maps and the historical figures

involved.

USCG Petty Officer 3rd Class Michael Anderson. "Canada to Submit Its Arctic Continental

Shelf Claim in 2018." Radio Canada International. Radio Canada International, 18 May 2016.

Web. 05 Apr. 2017.


This article provided a great visual that shows every nation’s current claim and all of the

claims that have been made.

Robert De Vaugondy, Didier. Carte des parties nord et oust de l’Amérique. [Livourne, France,

1772] Map. Retrieved from the Library of Congress,

https://www.loc.gov/item/74694263/

The Library of Congress provided a great map of what cartographers thought North

American looked like in 1764.

Pidcock, Roz. "Reflections on a Changing Arctic: Less Ice Means Faster Warming."Carbon

Brief. Climate Brief LTD, 04 Aug. 2013. Web. 07 Mar. 2017.

The albedo effect is an essential piece of the melting sea ice puzzle and I found that this

article used great explanations and diagrams to explain the process in depth.

"Polar Discovery :: Arctic, the Frozen Ocean :: Timeline 330 BC to 1000 AD." Polar Discovery

:: Arctic, the Frozen Ocean :: Timeline 330 BC to 1000 AD. Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institute, 2006. Web. 07 Mar. 2017.

Woods Hole is home to a large number of research institutes and experts on marine

biology and human exploration of the seas. The website has a great timeline with

accurate dates and good information about early Arctic exploration.

Press, Associated. "Denmark: A Claim to the North Pole." The New York Times. The New York

https://www.loc.gov/item/74694263/


Times, 15 Dec. 2014. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

The New York Times reported on the Danish claim to the north pole as soon as it was

announced that Copenhagen would do such. The article outlines when the claim will be

made and the specifics the Danish government thinks will happen.

U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas, Montego Bay, Jamaica, 1973-1982. Part IV, Article

76, Section 4, Clause (a).

This is a crucial reference point for the entirety of the topic and should serve as a

reference point for the delegates as well. Starting in 1973, UNCLOS has served as the

basis for all oceanic territorial claims.

"William Edward Parry Final North-West Passage Expeditions 1821–25." Royal Museums

Greenwich | UNESCO World Heritage Site In London. Royal Museums Greenwich, 05

July 2016. Web. 07 Mar. 2017.

The Greenwich museums website provided with in depth knowledge and detail for all of

Parry’s voyages, especially those that took place in the Arctic.


Topic B: Chinese Construction in the South China Sea Introduction: The South China Sea is one of the busiest waterways in the world, as an estimated five

trillion dollars worth of goods move through the region. The sea is bordered by six nations and

all are trying to stake claims to the islands that lie within. Since 2014, the People’s Republic of

China has been making vast claims to many islands in the region, and in some cases, islands that

are within the exclusive economic zone of other nations. In addition, the PRC has been dredging

atolls and islands to increase their size and are creating new land masses. This has caused the

nations in the region to grow wary of artificial growth. Other countries are starting to take notice

as well, due to the vast amounts of goods that move through the area.

History and Description of the Issue:

The Paracel Islands are an archipelago located in the Northwest of the South China Sea.

They are split into two areas, the Amphitrite group in the Northeast and the Crescent group in the

West. They are barren of any real kind of potable water or resources that merit a large-scale

occupation. While the French occupied Indochina in the early 20th century, the islands were still

of little interest. The French did establish a weather station on one of the islands in 1932 and it

was maintained by the Vietnamese after the French occupation. This weather station was the

first “colonization” of the region by any nation, but it was not the last. The Japanese made a few

claims during World War II, but they soon withdrew after the war. The People’s Republic of

China made its presence first know in the region in 1947.


In 1947, China moved on Woody Island, sending troops and fully occupying the island.

The significance of this lies in the fact that Woody Island is the largest island in the Amphitrite

group. Prattle Island is the largest in the Crescent group, which was occupied by the Vietnamese

and their weather station. In 1974 the South Vietnamese government had negotiated with

foreign governments and gave them oil rights to areas in the Paracels. Seeing this as an

intrusion, the Chinese launched an offensive to capture

Prattle Island and thus seize control of the archipelago

(Paracel Islands).

The occurrences in the Spratly Islands tell a

similar, but more complicated story. The Spratlys were

first found around 200 BCE by the Chinese and for the

next 2000 years remained mostly quiet. In the 1730’s

many pirates used the Spratlys as a base of operations to

sack British, French and Dutch ships that were

traversing the area, similar to how they used the West

Indies but in a much smaller scale. In order to combat

the problem, the British fleets entered and raided many

of the pirate bases thus removing the pirate threat. The next major construction was done by the

British when they built an iron observation tower on the largest island, Itu Aba. In 1885, China

made its official claim to the entire archipelago, an assertion contested by the French in 1933.

The French moved onto the islands and they claimed nine of the islands while there were

Chinese fisherman still living there. The islands once again came under attack, this time by the


Japanese who seized some of the islands and established submarine bases during World War II.

After the war the Chinese saw a power vacuum in the region and moved in and seized Itu Aba

and declared the islands as part of Guangdong Province. From there, more nations became

actors in the region.

With the establishment of the Republic of the Philippines in 1946 by the Treaty of

Manila, the new nation sought to gain territory and establish itself as a major power in the

region. Its first move was taking the Scarborough Shoal in 1947-1948, establishing an

observation tower in the area, and fortifying a military presence in 1956. The next nation to step

into the arena was Malaysia, which took Swallow Reef and established a military base. Malaysia

then claimed several islands in the Southwest and Southern portion of the archipelago, this

violated previous claims made by Vietnam. In 1984 Brunei would enter the mix and lay claim to

Louise Reef. In 1985, Brunei would make a claim that their continental shelf overlaps with one

of the reefs, an argument that can be made under the United Nations Convention on the Laws of

the Sea (Spratly Islands). Then in 1988 Vietnamese and Chinese forces meet at Johnson reef and

two Vietnamese gunboats are sunk, the Vietnamese are removed from the reef. The first sign of

peace came in 1991 from Indonesia when they attempt to find a peaceful solution with the

nations that have territorial claims to the Spratlys (History of the Spratlys). It was quite in the

region for the most part until early 2014.

In early 2014, Chinese forces reentered the region and started a reclamation project in the

Spratlys. The Chinese are not the only ones who have dredging operations underway; the

Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Taiwan have all participated in similar operations on a

much smaller scale. China has reclaimed about 3,000 acres in three years which is much larger


than any of the other nations have done. The bulk of the build-up operations have occurred on

seven reefs: Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef, Mischief Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Gaven Reef and

Hughes Reef. China has built artificial harbors and islands

from the reefs, some are large enough to have airstrips that

can accommodate anything from a

surveillance plane to a bomber

(Showdown in the South China Sea).

Experts in Sino-American relations

say that this build up is not to control

the fishing grounds and oil reserves,

but to bolster their claim to the

islands (What has China been

Building…). Others would argue that the build up is to assert Chinese dominance in the region,

more specifically the shipping lanes that go right through the region.

Over half of the world’s goods travel through the South China Sea, and as a result it is

one of the single most important trade routes in the world. More specifically, the Strait of

Malacca transports 25 percent of traded goods and is the conduit from the Indian Ocean to the

Pacific Ocean. From the Strait, ships travel Northeast through the South China Sea towards the

Chinese mainland, Japan and South Korea. On top of material goods, one third of the world’s

liquefied natural gas moves through the region and is integral to the infrastructure of nearby

nations (18 Maps that Explain Maritime Security in Asia). An increase in the Chinese military

presence makes the recipients of those goods and products wary. This is not what the Chinese


government says is behind the construction. The Chinese foreign minister released a statement

in 2015 that declares:

“The construction activities on the Nansha islands and reefs fall within the scope of China's sovereignty, and are lawful, reasonable and justified. They are not targeted at any other country, do not affect the freedom of navigation and overflight enjoyed by all countries in accordance with international law in the South China Sea, nor have they caused or will they cause damage to the marine ecological system and environment in the South China Sea, and are thus beyond reproach… Apart from satisfying the need of necessary military defense, the main purpose of China's construction activities is to meet various civilian demands and better perform China's international obligations and responsibilities in the areas such as maritime search and rescue, disaster prevention and mitigation, marine scientific research, meteorological observation, ecological environment conservation, navigation safety as well as fishery production service. After the land reclamation, we will start the building of facilities to meet relevant functional requirements” (Foreign Ministry Spokesperson…).

The true nature of the Chinese construction is still unknown and perhaps will never been known.

That purpose may not matter, the facts are that the People’s Republic of China have built

artificial islands in the Spratly Islands and have laid claim to the entirety of the Paracel Islands.

The other nations in the South China Sea have been put on notice by the increase in Chinese

forces. Only time will tell what the Chinese plan on doing with the islands

Current Status:

Contrary to what the Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson has said (Foreign Ministry

Spokesperson), China’s construction in the South China Sea did not stop in 2015. As recently as

March 2017, there have been reports of more construction in the Paracel Islands. Experts

suggest that the land clearing on North Island could be in an effort to establish a military

presence on the island and to create a harbor for military and civilian vessels (China Begins New


Work). Although most of the spotlight in this conflict has been on the Spratly Islands, the

Paracels are key to China’s presence and power in the South China Sea. The Paracels lie to the

South of Hainan Island, which is home to the Chinese nuclear submarine fleet. Ownership of

these islands is crucial to Beijing for their own national security, but to also deter any ships

flying a foreign flag in the region by way of patrolling the waters near these islands with large

coast guard vessels (Vietnam Steps up). Those large vessels were used to ram Vietnamese

fishing boats that were protesting an oil rig. In 2014, the China National Petroleum Corporation

(a state-owned oil company) moved a semi-submersible oil rig to the Paracel Islands. The rig,

known as HD 981, was in the middle of its exploration of the area when huge protests were

sparked in the coastal town of Da Nang. HD 981 and the fleet accompanying it were called back

to safe harbor (Oil Rig Stops Exploration). The Vietnamese and Chinese governments are the

two main players for the Paracel Islands, but the conflict over the Spratlys involves China,

Vietnam, Brunei, The Philippines and Malaysia.

Similar to the Paracel Islands, construction had not halted in the Spratly Islands.

According to the New York Times, weapon installations have been sighted on Fiery Cross Reef.

This contradicts President Xi Jinping’s claim that the islands would not be militarized (China

Suggests). The Philippines have a large role in the disputed island chain, and the militarization

of the Spratlys has been a large fear for Manilla. President Rodrigo Duterte ordered his armed

forces to occupy islands in the Spratly chain on April 2017, which angered Beijing. Duterte

went as far as to say that he himself would plant the Philippine flag on their largest island,

Pag-asa, on the country’s independence day (Duterte orders Military). This announcement was

contradictory to Duterte’s pro-China policy efforts. The date Duterte outlined for this flag


planting came and went, likely in an effort to mend the strained relationship between the two

countries (Philippines on Duterte’s Order).

Brunei has been making claims to the Spratlys in the most diplomatic way. After gaining

independence from Britain in 1984, Brunei signed UNCLOS and made a claim for its own EEZ.

It has had its own discussions with Vietnam and Malaysia when confronted with a possible

conflict and has solved them all without the loss of life or conflict of any kind. Brunei’s talks

with China have been bilateral in nature and very private (Brunei, Silent Claimant). Although

the diplomatic avenue may not work as well as it did with Vietnam and Malaysia, Brunei could

effectively use the economic relationship with China that it has built since their independence.

Malaysia has been quite when it comes to its own claims in the South China Sea as well. This is

because of the large part that China plays in the Malay economy. “(China has) a record of

withdrawing economic support elsewhere when friends turn hostile” (Why Malaysia Stays

Quiet). Seeing this, the Malay do not want to provoke China because it could spell disaster for

Malaysia.

Bloc Positions:

The Chinese position in this dispute is that all actions taken by the PRC are legal in

international law. Beijing says that it has documentation of Chinese fisherman going to both

Island chains and, therefore, those islands are the sovereign territory of China. The reclamation

of the reefs is also seen as China protecting its sovereignty and its right to protect its own

national interests. However, in a statement made during a news briefing, Chinese Foreign

Ministry Spokeswoman Hua Chunying said that “China was also dedicated to protecting freedom


of navigation and wants talks with nations directly involved to find a peaceful solution” (China

Says “Will Protect…”). The Chinese are not interested in starting a war with the nations in the

South China Sea for two reasons. China has close economic ties to the nations in the South China

and the nations in the region also have signed treaties with other major powers around the world

and if those nations were attacked by China, it could start a major global conflict.

The Philippine government has made its own claim to Islands in the Spratly Chain but

has expressed ownership over the entirety of the Scarborough Shoal. Ever since the Chinese

moved into the region, the Philippine government has made many pleas to the international

community and even took China to the Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration. The arbitration

ruled favorably for the Philippines, but president Duterte said that he would put aside the ruling

so that Sino-Philippine relations could be restored (Philippines to ‘set aside’). The Philippines

want their sovereignty respected by Beijing, but they are now moving towards a pro-China

foreign policy.

Vietnam is taking a much more confrontational stance on the topic. In addition to the

conflict in 1974 and the massive anti-China protests in Da Nang, there have been reports that

Hanoi has moved rocket launchers capable of striking Chinese air installations in the Spratlys.

While Vietnam has not outright denied the reports, they have called it “inaccurate” but they also

said that if they were to make such a move, it would be within their sovereign right to defend

their territory (Vietnam Moves New Rocket Launchers). Vietnam claims that the Paracel Islands

are the territory of Vietnam and the government hopes to one day set foot back on the islands.


Brunei has submitted its own territorial claims to islands in the South China Sea to the

UN under UNCLOS and has also submitted its own claim for an EEZ off their coast. Malaysia’s

claims in the South China Sea are a bit more complex than the other claimants. The Malaysian

foreign minister said that Malaysia and China do not have overlapping claims in the South China

Sea, he also said that Malaysia does not recognize China’s “nine-dashed line” showing that

China has claim to about 80% of the South China Sea. The Foreign Minister also stated “that all

geographical aspects or maritime features which are within Malaysia's maritime jurisdiction

belong to Malaysia” (No Territorial Disputes).

India has become an emerging player in the South China Sea and seems to be opposed to

the Chinese claim over some of the islands. In the last two years, India has become increasingly

vocal in the dispute. Although it has no territory in the region, India has been critical of China

and supportive of Vietnam and Malaysia. This may be due in part to the strained Chinese-Indian

relationship of recent years. China is supportive of Pakistan in the Kashmir conflict and did not

back the Indian effort to join the Nuclear Supplier Group. In addition, the Chinese are taking a

stauncher outlook on India because of its increasingly close relationship with the US (Will India

Spoil). The United States has a similar stance on the South China Sea as India does. In addition,

the US has many allies in the region and some of those treaties would require it to act if an ally

went to war with China. The South China Sea is the primary channel through which South

Korea and Japan, two strong US allies, get their oil and other goods. The US also maintains that

although it does not have territory in the region, it is committed to protecting the right of passage

in international waterways and freedom of navigation. American officials have stated that the

US is not trying to start a conflict, but to help find a peaceful solution.


Committee Mission:

This committee is charged with the mission of looking at the territorial claims that have

been made in the South China Sea and come to a solution in regards to the territories. This

committee must also consider past actions taken by claimants and how that will affect their

current claims. Establishing freedom of navigation and passage is a crucial obligation of this

committee. Due to the amount of goods and fuel that flow through this region, it is important to

understand that any decisions made in this committee will affect not just the claimants and their

neighbors, but will also affect a large majority of the world.

Question to Consider:

1. Which states have legal claim to which islands?

2. If forced to vacate land, what will be done with the islands in both the Spratly and Woody

Islands?

3. Does your nation have cargo being moved through the South China Sea?

4. How does security in the South China Sea affect your nation directly or indirectly?

5. How can these aforementioned disputes be resolved without nations losing territory?


Works Cited

Blanchard, Ben, and David Brunnstrom. "China Says Will Protect South China Sea

Sovereignty." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 24 Jan. 2017. Web. 19 June 2017.

This article highlights the most important aspects of China’s position on the South

China Sea conflict.

Buckley, Chris. "China Suggests It Has Placed Weapons on Disputed Spratly Islands in South

China Sea." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 19 June

2017.

China’s policies in the South China Sea have impacted the US’ foreign policy

drastically and this article shows how the US-China relationship is shifting rapidly

due to the conflict.

"18 Maps That Explain Maritime Security in Asia." Center for Strategic and International

Studies. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, June 2014. Web. 08 June 2017.

The Center for Strategic & International Studies is a foreign policy think tank that is

very well known. The visuals in this article provide a great and easy way to see the

information provided and help illustrate what nations have at stake in this conflict.

"Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang's Remarks on Issues Relating to China's Construction

Activities on the Nansha Islands and Reefs." Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu


Kang's Remarks on Issues Relating to China's Construction Activities on the Nansha

Islands and Reefs. The Foreign Ministry of the People's Republic of China, 6 June

2015. Web. 04 June 2017.

This is the exact transcript of the Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson remarks and it

outlines China’s stance on the South China Sea Conflict.

Hunt, Katie. "Showdown in the South China Sea: How Did We Get Here?" CNN. Cable News

Network, 02 Aug. 2016. Web. 04 June 2017.

CNN is a reputable American based news outlet that reports on both domestic and

foreign issues. This article shows not only the current situation and the capabilities of

the Chinese forces in the region, but also what this conflict could mean for the region.

Jennings, Ralph. "Why Malaysia Stays Quiet About Its Claims In The South China

Sea."Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 03 June 2016. Web. 19 June 2017.

This article provides great background on the Malaysian claim in the South China

Sea, while also illustrating the reasoning behind it.

Mourdoukoutas, Panos. "Will India Spoil China's South China Sea Ambitions?" Forbes. Forbes

Magazine, 09 Nov. 2016. Web. 19 June 2017.

India’s involvement in the region is not well known and this article does a really good

job of outlining their position and how it can influence the entire conflict.


Ng, Teddy, and Kristine Kwok. "Oil Rig Stops Exploration Work near Disputed Paracel Islands

a Month Early." South China Morning Post. South China Morning Post Publishers

Limited, 16 July 2014. Web. 19 June 2017.

The South China Morning Post is a Hong Kong based newspaper and therefore is not

owned and operated by the Chinese government.

Peel, Michael. "Vietnam steps up islands battle with Beijing in South China Sea." Financial

Times. Financial Times Limited, 18 Mar. 2017. Web. 19 June 2017.

Since the Vietnamese involvement is also not as well known, this article does a good

job of outlining how and why the Vietnamese are involved.

Press, Associated. "Philippines to 'set Aside' South China Sea Tribunal Ruling to Avoid

Imposing on Beijing." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 17 Dec. 2016. Web.

19 June 2017.

This article outlines why Duterte went after this ruling and then chose to not use it.

The Guardian combined sources from the AP and the Center for Strategic and

International Studies making it a very trustworthy article.

Sands, Gary. "Brunei, Silent Claimant in the South China Sea." Foreign Policy Blogs. Foreign

Policy Association, 08 Feb. 2017. Web. 19 June 2017.


Brunei is a small nation and does not get a lot of news coverage, so when a site like

the Foreign Policy Association writes an article on them it can be extremely useful for

finding information on the nation.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Paracel Islands." Encyclopædia Britannica.

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., n.d. Web. 04 June 2017.

The Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the most respected sources of information in the

world. This particular article gave great background information on the Paracels and

gives good perspective on the situation.

The Editors. "History of the Spratly Islands." Spratly Islands History Timeline - Nansha Islands

of China. Spratlys.org, 23 Dec. 2007. Web. 04 June 2017.

This website is completely dedicated to the history of the Spratly Islands and is

therefore full of important information to the development of the Spratlys.

The Editors. "No Territorial Disputes with China over South China Sea: Malaysia Minister."

TODAYonline. Media Corp Press, 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 19 June 2017.

TODAY is an english printed news outlet in Singapore that is read by professionals in

all industries. This article shows the Malaysian and Chinese side of the conflict from

a regional perspective.


The Editors. "US Warship Challenges China's Claims in South China Sea." News | Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera, 25 May 2017. Web. 19 June 2017.

Although the exact author is not listed, Al Jazeera is a reputable news outlet that is

based in Qatar. Since the US armed forces are involved, this article provides an

outside point of view that is helpful when dealing with US affairs.

Torode, Greg. "China Begins New Work on Disputed South China Sea Island." Reuters.

Thomson Reuters, 15 Mar. 2017. Web. 19 June 2017.

This article shows the Chinese construction in the South China Sea and gives the US

response to this construction. Using this article, in combination with the New York

Times article on Chinese construction allows you to build a good, well rounded

picture of what is happening.

Torode, Greg. "Exclusive: Vietnam Moves New Rocket Launchers into Disputed South China

Sea - Sources." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 10 Aug. 2016. Web. 19 June 2017.

Making a claim that a nation has moved in large scale weapons is very serious and

needs to be checked. Reuters is very well trusted and they will only write articles on

what they know is true.

Villamor, Felipe. "Duterte Orders Military to Parts of South China Sea Claimed by

Philippines." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Apr. 2017. Web. 19 June

2017.


Duterte was making a very large and sweeping request of his military that would have

global effects. The New York Times reported on it and shows why he made those

remarks but he didn’t explain how he would go about doing it.

Villamor, Felipe. "Philippines on Duterte’s Order to Occupy Disputed Islands: Never Mind."

The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Apr. 2017. Web. 19 June 2017.

Using the previous article, it can be seen how quickly Duterte back peddled from his

previous remarks. It also outlines how much Duterte values his relationship with

China.

Watkins, Derek. "What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea." The New York Times.

The New York Times, 31 July 2015. Web. 04 June 2017.

This article from the New York Times shows the process through which the Chinese

ships have been building the islands. The article also shows some of the capabilities

of the Chinese forces in the Islands.

"The World Factbook: SPRATLY ISLANDS." Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence

Agency, 30 May 2017. Web. 05 June 2017.

The Central Intelligence Agency has compiled dossiers and information on various

regions around the world not only for their own sake, but to better educate and inform

the public. The article that was chosen gave good raw information about the Spratly

Islands that would not necessarily be found elsewhere.

ucmun · 2020-01-25 · reworked. the scope of the ilc's work is large and far-reaching,...

Documents