جغرافیای سیاسی مناقشات در دریای چین جنوبی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشجوی مقطع دکتری جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

دریای چین جنوبی، به عنوان یکی از مهم ترین و بحث‌برانگیزترین منابع آبی جهان، در فضای پیچیده ژئوپلیتیکی به شمار می‌رود. این دریا اغلب، در معرض سوء تفاهمات و در برخی موارد تبلیغات جهت‌دار (پروپاگاندا)، بوده است. هدف این مقاله(چشم‌انداز)، فراهم‌سازی پس‌زمینه و اطلاعات اساسی درباره مناقشه در دریای چین جنوبی (که در واقع یک سری اختلافات است)، از منظر جغرافیای سیاسی، یعنی از منظر کشورهای ساحلی یا کشورهای که در یک پهنه آبی هم‌مرز است؛ و ادعاهای سرزمینی مربوطه آن ها بر سر فضاهای دریای چین جنوبی است(Agnew and et al,2015:4). به طور مشخص، این مقاله به مبانی مربوط به جغرافیای فیزیکی دریای چین جنوبی، و منشاء و توسعه ادعاهای مربوطه کشورهای ساحلی در مورد بخش‌هایی از دریای چین جنوبی، از جمله جزایر، صخره‌ها و ارتفاعات جزر و مدی[1]  متمرکز خواهد بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Political geography of disputes in the South China Sea

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohammad Shahab Ahmadi
PhD student in Political Geography, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

مراجع

  1. Agnew, J; Mamadouh, V; Secour, A.J; Sharp, J (2015). “Introduction,” in John Agnew, Virginie Mamadouh, Anna J. Secour, and Joanne Sharp, eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Political Geography, Malden, Mass.: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 1–9.
  2. Bateman, S; Behm, A; Bergin, A; Batongbacal, J.L; Choong, W; Clark, H; Davis, M; Jennings, P; Long, A; Rothwell, D; Zhang, F (2016). Assessing the South China Sea Award, Canberra: Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
  3. Bouchat, C. J (2013). Dangerous Ground: The Spratly Islands and U.S. Interests and Approaches, Carlisle Barracks, Pa.: U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.
  4. Brimelow, B (2021). “China’s Ships Are Getting Bigger and More Aggressive, and Japan Is Scrambling to Keep Up,” Insider, February 25.
  5. Burgess, J; Foulkes, L; Jones, P; Merighi, M; Murray, S; Whitacre, J; Zones, M; Burgess, J; Foulkes, L; Jones, P; Merighi, M; Murray, S; Whitacre, J (2017). Law of the Sea: A Policy Primer, Medford, Mass.: The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, pp. 11–18.
  6. Burke, E. J; Stuth Cevallos, A (2022). In Line or Out of Order? China’s Approach to ADIZ in Theory and Practice, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2055-AF, 2017. As of September 1:https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2055.html.
  7. Cáceres, Sigfrido Burgos (2014). China’s Strategic Interests in the South China Sea: Power and Resources, London: Routledge, 2014.
  8. Center for Preventive Action, “Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea,” Council on Foreign Relations Global Conflict Tracker, 2021.
  9. Chang, F.K (2020). “Uncertain Prospects: South China Sea Code of Conduct Negotiations,” Foreign Policy Research Institute, October 6, 2020.
  10. Chatterjee, B (2016). “Almost 40% of Mumbai May Be Submerged Within the Next 100 Years,” Hindustan Times, updated December 22.
  11. China Power, “How Much Trade Transits the South China Sea?” Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 25, 2021.
  12. Chung, Chris P. C (2016). “Drawing the U-Shaped Line: China’s Claim in the South China Sea, 1946–1974,” Modern China, Vol. 42, No. 1, January 2016, pp. 38–72.
  13. CIA—See Central Intelligence Agency.
  14. Colin, S (2016). “China, the US, and the Law of the Sea,” China Perspectives, No. 2016/2, June 1, 2016, pp. 57–62.
  15. Cruz de Castro, R (2009). “The US-Philippine Alliance: An Evolving Hedge Against an Emerging China Challenge,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 31, No. 3, December 2009, pp. 399–423.
  16. Dobbins, J; Scobell, A; Burke, E.J;. Gompert, D.C; Grossman, D; Heginbotham, E; Shatz, H.J (2017). Conflict with China Revisited: Prospects, Consequences, and Strategies for Deterrence, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, PE-248-A, 2017. As of September 2,   2022: https://www.rand. org/pubs/perspectives/PE248.html
  17. Donnell, J. C (1980).“Vietnam 1979: Year of Calamity,” Asian Survey, Vol. 20, No. 1, January 1980, pp. 19–32.
  18. Dossani, F; Harold, S.W (E.d) “Introduction and Summary of the Proceedings,” in Rafiq Dossani and Scott Warren Harold.
  19. Dupuy, F; Dupuy, P.M (2013). “A Legal Analysis of China’s Historic Rights Claim in the South China Sea,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 107, No. 1, January 2013, pp. 124–141.
  20. Dutton, P (2020). Vietnam Threatens China with Litigation over the South China Sea,” Lawfare, blog, July 27, 2020. As of June 21, 2022: https://www.lawfareblog.com/.
  21. Dzurek, D.J (1996). The Spratly Islands Dispute: Who’s on First? Durham, United Kingdom: University of Durham Press, 1996.
  22. Elleman, B.A. (2018). China’s Naval Operations in the South China Sea: Evaluating Legal, Strategic and Military Factors, Folkestone, United Kingdom: Renaissance Books, 2018.
  23. Fravel, M. T. (2008). “Power Shifts and Escalation: Explaining China’s Use of Force in Territorial Disputes,” International Security, Vol. 32, No. 3, Winter 2007–2008, pp. 44–83.
  24. Gompert, D. C; Binnendijk, H; Lin, B (2022).  Blinders, Blunders, and Wars: What America and China Can Learn, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-768-RC, 2014. As of September 2, 2022: https://www.rand.org/pubs /research _reports/RR768.html.
  25. Green, M; Hicks, K; Cooper, Z; Schaus, J; Douglas, J (2017). “Counter-Coercion Series: China-Vietnam Oil Rig Standoff,” Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 12, 2017.
  26. Grossman, D (2016). “China’s Actions Are Causing U.S. ‘Militarization’ of the Pacific,” RAND Blog, November 3, 2016. As of September 9, 2022: https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/11/.
  27. Hai, D.T (2017). Vietnam and the South China Sea: Politics, Security and Legality, London: Routledge, 2017.
  28. Hayton, B (2014). The South China Sea: The Struggle for Power in Asia, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2014.
  29. Heydarian, R. J (2015). Asia’s New Battlefield: The USA, China and the Struggle for the Western Pacific, London: Zed Books, 2015.TON
  30. Huang, X; Betzler, Ch; Wu, Sh; Bernhardt, A; Eagles, G; Han, X; Hovland, M (2020). “First Documentation of Seismic Stratigraphy and Depositional Signatures of Zhongsha Atoll (Macclesfield Bank), South China Sea,” Marine and Petroleum Geography, Vol. 117, July 2020, pp. 1–12.
  31. Iuchi Y; Asano, U (2013). “The Functions and Work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: How It Responds to Disputed Island Claims Among Coastal States,” OPRI Center of Island Studies, September 19, 2013.
  32. Karig, D. E (1971). “Origin and Development of Marginal Basins in the Western Pacific,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 76, No. 11, April 10, 1971, pp. 2542–2561.
  33. Katchen, M.H (1977).“The Spratly Islands and the Law of the Sea: ‘Dangerous Ground’ for Asian Peace,” Asian Survey, Vol. 17, No. 12, December 1977, pp. 1167–1181.
  34. Kim, H.S (1994).“The 1992 Chinese Territorial Sea Law in the Light of the UN Convention,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 4, October 1994, pp. 894–904.
  35. Kim, J (2015). “Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea: Implications for Security in Asia and Beyond,” Strategic Studies Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 2, Summer 2015, pp. 107–141.
  36. Koda, Y (2014). “Japan’s Perspectives on U.S. Policy Toward the South China Sea,” in Murray Hiebert, Phuong Nguyen, and Gregory B. Poling, eds., Perspectives on the South China Sea: Diplomatic, Legal, and Security Dimensions of the Dispute, Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2014, pp. 82–95.
  37. Koo, M. G (2010). Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in South Asia: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, New York: Springer, 2010.
  38. Kopela, S (2017). “Historic Titles and Historic Rights in the Law of the Sea in the Light of the South China Sea Arbitration,” Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2017, pp. 181–207.
  39. Krepinevich, A; Watts, B; Work, R (2003). Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge, Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2003.
  40. Kreuzer, P (2015). Facing China: Crises or Peaceful Coexistence in the South China Sea, Frankfurt, Germany: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, PRIF Report No. 134, 2015.
  41. Kuo, L; Cadell, C (2022). “China Unveils Cutting-Edge Aircraft Carrier, First to Be Locally Designed,” Washington Post, June 17, 2022.
  42. Lin, Ch (1997). “Taiwan’s South China Sea Policy,” Asian Survey, Vol. 37, No. 4, April 1997, pp. 323–339.
  43. Marlay, R (1997). “China, the Philippines, and the Spratly Islands,” Asian Affairs: An American Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, Winter 1997, pp. 195–210.
  44. Mastro, O.S (021). “How China Is Bending the Rules in the South China Sea,” The Interpreter, February 17, 2021.
  45. Morris, L. J (2022). A U.S. Option Playbook for Contingency Planning to Reclaim Scarborough Shoal, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, PE-335-RC, 2019. As of September 2, 2022: https://www.rand. org/pubs/ perspectives/PE335.html.
  46. Nguyen, T.L.A (2015). “Award of the Republic of Philippines v. the People’s Republic of China: Legal Implications on the South China Sea Disputes,” in Seokwoo Lee, Hee Eun Lee, and Lowell Bautista, eds., Asian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 21, Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Nijhoff, 2015, pp. 34–48.
  47. Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, “U.S. Policy on the South China Sea,” International Law Studies, Vol. 97, 2021, pp. 76–80.
  48. Pala, Ch (2020). “China’s Monster Fishing Fleet,” Foreign Policy, November 30, 2020.
  49. Panda, A (2017). “South China Sea: Is China Considering Construction Work at Scarborough Shoal Again?” The Diplomat, March 18, 2017.
  50. Path, K (2012). “China’s Economic Sanctions Against Vietnam, 1975– 1978,” China Quarterly, No. 212, December 2012, pp. 1040–1058.
  51. PCA—See Permanent Court of Arbitration.
  52. Permanent Court of Arbitration (2021). “The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. the People’s Republic of China),” webpage, undated. As of October 1, 2021:https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
  53. Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the United Nations, joint submission by Malaysia and Vietnam on the southern part of the South China
  54. Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations, position statement on South China Sea, New York: United Nations, CML/17/2009, May 7, 2009. As of September 30, 2021: https://www. un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/ mysvnm33_09/ chn_2009re_ mys_vnm_e.pdf.
  55. Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations, position statement on South China Sea continental shelf, New York: United Nations, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, No. 000819, August 4, 2009. As of September 30, 2021: https://www. un.org/ Depts/ los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mysvnm33_09/clcs_33_2009_los_phl.pdf.
  56. Permanent Mission of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to the United Nations, position statement on outer limits of Vietnam’s continental shelf, New York: United Nations, No. 240HC-2009, August 18, 2009. As of September 30, 2021: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_ new/submissions _files/mysvnm33_09/vnm_re_phl_2009re_mys_vnm_e.pdf.
  57. Permanent Representative of the United States of America, “Letter Dated 1 June 2020 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary- General,” New York: United Nations, A/74/874-S/2020/483, June 2, 2020. As of January 31, 2022:https:/ /undocs.org/a/74/874
  58. Pham, N (2009).“Scholars Meet to Discuss South China Sea Disputes,” BBC News, November 26, 2009.
  59. Pincus, W (2015). “China Is Not the Only Country Reclaiming Land in South China Sea,” Washington Post, June 1, 2015.
  60. Poling, G (2020). “The Conventional Wisdom on China’s Island Bases Is Dangerously Wrong,” War on the Rocks, January 10, 2020.
  61. PRC—See People’s Republic of China.
  62. Rabbani, A (2019).“China’s Hegemony in the South China Sea,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, Vol. 23, No. 3, Autumn 2019, pp. 66–79.
  63. Reed, L; Wong, K (2012). “Marine Entitlements in the South China Sea: The Arbitration Between the Philippines and China,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 110, No. 4, October 2012 Scobell, Andrew, “The South China Sea and U.S.-China Rivalry,”
  64. Rej, A (2021). “US Destroyer Conducts FONOP in South China Sea,”The Diplomat, February 6, 2021.
  65. Rising, D; Moritsugu, K (2022). “China Launches High-Tech Aircraft Carrier in Naval Milestone,” AP News, June 17, 2022.
  66. Rowan, J.P (2005). “The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance, ASEAN, and the South China Sea Dispute,” Asian Survey, Vol. 45, No. 3, May–June 2005, pp. 414–436.
  67. Sea, New York: United Nations, HA 41/09, August 21, 2009. As of September 30, 2021: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/ mysvnm 33_09/mys_re_phl_2009re_mys_vnm_e.pdf
  68. Severino, R.C (2010).“ASEAN and the South China Sea,” Security Challenges, Vol. 6, No. 2, Winter 2010, pp. 37–47.
  69. Shelbourne, M (2021). “China Has World’s Largest Navy with 355 Ships and Counting, Says Pentagon,” USNI News, November 3, 2021.
  70. Southerland, M (2016). China’s Island Building in the South China Sea: Damage to the Marine Environment, Implications, and International Law, Washington, D.C.: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, April 12, 2016.6, pp. 746–760.
  71. Southgate, L (2019). ASEAN Resistance to Sovereignty Violation: Interests, Balancing and the Role of the Vanguard State, Bristol, United Kingdom: Bristol University Press, 2019.
  72. Thayer, C (2013). “ASEAN, China and the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea,” SAIS Review of International Affairs, Vol. 33, No. 2, Summer–Fall 2013, pp. 75–84.
  73. Tønnesson, S (2019). “The Paracels: The ‘Other’ South China Sea Dispute,”Trajano, Julius Cesar, Resource Sharing and Joint Development in the South China Sea: Exploring Avenues of Cooperation, Singapore: Nanyang Technological University, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTS Insight No. IN19-01, March 2019.
  74. S. Department of Defense, Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy, Washington, D.C., 2015.
  75. Uras, A (2017). “The South China Sea and the Building of a National Maritime Culture: A New Chinese Province in the Making,” Asian Survey, Vol. 57, No. 6, November–December 2017, pp. 1008–1031.
  76. Villegas, B (1986). “The Economic Crisis,” in John Bresnan, ed., Crisis in the Philippines: The Marcos Era and Beyond, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986, pp. 145–175.
  77. Vuving, A. L (2016). “South China Sea: Who Occupies What in the Spratlys?” The Diplomat, May 6, 2016.
  78. Wang, Z (2015). “Chinese Discourse on the ‘Nine-Dashed Line’: Rights, Interests, and Nationalism,” Asian Survey, Vol. 55, No. 3, May–June 2015, pp. 502–524.
  79. Yap, C.W (2021).“China’s Fishing Fleet, the World’s Largest, Drives Beijing’s Global Ambitions,” Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2021.
  80. Yergin, D (2020). “The World’s Most Important Body of Water,” The Atlantic, December 15, 2020.
  81. ——— (2017). “The Paracels: Historical Evidence Must Be Examined,” in Yang Razali Kassim, ed., The South China Sea Disputes: Flashpoints, Turning Points and Trajectories, Hackensack, N.J.: World Scientific, 2017,pp. 235–238.
  82. ——— (2019). “The Modern Origins of China’s South China Sea Claims: Maps, Misunderstandings, and the Maritime Geobody,” Modern China,Vol. 45, No. 2, March 2019, pp. 127–170.
  83. ——— (2021).“After 25 Years, There’s Still No South China Sea Code of Conduct,” Foreign Policy, July 21, 2021.
  84. ———(2016). “China’s ‘Historic Rights’ in the South China Sea: Made in America?” The Diplomat, June 21, 2016.
  85. ——— (2015). “No, China Is Not Reclaiming Land in the South China Sea,” The Diplomat, June 7, 2015.
  86. ——— (2016). In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration Before an Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, The Hague, The Netherlands, PCA Case No. 2013-19, July 12, 2016.
  87. ——— (2022) Position statement on South China Sea continental shelf limits, New York: United Nations, 000192-2020, March 6, 2020. As of January 31, 2022: https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_ files/mys_12_12_2019/2020_03_06_PHL_NV_UN_002.pdf.
  88. ——— (2019). “Receipt of the Partial Submission Made by Malaysia to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf Regarding Its Continental Shelf in the South China Sea,” New York: United Nations, CLCS.85.2019.LOS (continental shelf notification), December 18, 2019. As of January 31, 2022: https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions _ files/mys85_2019/2019_12_19%20CLCS%20notification.85.2019.LOS_e.pdf.
  89. ——— (2020). Position statement on South China Sea, New York: United Nations, CML/42/2020, April 17, 2020. As of January 31, 2022: https://www. un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mys_12_12_2019/2020_04_17_CHN_NV_UN_003_EN.pdf.
  90. ——— (2020). Position statement on South China Sea, New York: United Nations, No. 33/HC-2020, March 30, 2020. As of January 31, 2022: https://www. un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mys_12_12_ 20 19/VN20200330_ENG.pdf.

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 13 آبان 1402
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 13 آبان 1402

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار