By Mariam Bregadze
In July 2025, China’s Foreign Ministry reaffirmed its stance on the 2016 arbitral tribunal award regarding the South China Sea dispute, claiming that the “award is null and void and has no binding force.” Beijing also continued its militarization and island-building in disputed areas. Regional clashes not only affect economic and political relations and raise tensions, but also have a negative impact on the environment. Overfishing, ocean acidification, coral reef destruction, and climate change are among the problems affecting the South China Sea. However, given the complexity of the issues and the number of regional claimants, most of the attention has been given to nationalistic claims, geopolitical and economic concerns, and international engagement, with less focus on the environmental impact and long-term sustainability of the region’s natural resources. Thus, the development of mechanisms that utilize resources for conflict resolution would be an effective way to mitigate risks. The question that emerges is whether joint management of resources in the South China Sea can help mitigate the risks of escalation and offer a platform to bring claimants together.
The Nine-Dash Line, Nationalistic Claims, and Their Environmental Implications
The South China Sea plays a huge role in global trade, with more than $3 trillion worth of goods passing through it every year. It’s also known for having some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves. Current territorial claims, especially the infamous Nine-Dash Line, go back to 1947, when Chinese cartographers released a map that marked the area as Chinese territory. In 2023, a tenth dash was added to the map. That new line also includes Taiwan and reflects China’s broader regional territorial ambitions.
Tensions have increased in recent years as other countries have gotten involved. All of the claimants are trying to push back against China’s growing influence. Among ASEAN countries, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei are involved in the dispute, mostly over the Spratly Islands. At the same time, China, Taiwan, and Vietnam contest the Paracel Islands. The Philippines is in a separate dispute with China over Scarborough Shoal.
Since no country can realistically stand up to China alone, many of them have started working more closely with international actors, especially the United States, to strengthen their position. Since 1951, the Mutual Defense Treaty between the U.S. and the Philippines has reinforced the close relationship between the two countries. Due to these complex territorial disputes, focusing on environmental concerns has become extremely difficult. Illegal extraction and climate change have accelerated the effects of uncoordinated resource management in the disputed areas and pose a serious threat to food security. Fish depletion is another major problem, and many species are now endangered. It is estimated that fish populations have declined by 70–95 percent since the 1950s, and this number is expected to grow significantly in the near future. This not only destroys marine ecosystems and biodiversity, but also poses a serious threat to food system stability, as millions of people depend on fish for food and employment. The use of illegal dynamite makes it impossible to maintain normal carbon dioxide levels in the sea and difficult to recover lost resources, particularly coral reefs.
Formalizing Environmental Diplomacy and Its Mechanisms
Environmental diplomacy has become more formalized in recent years. Since the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) in Stockholm (UN, 1972), environmental diplomacy has played a crucial role in formalizing and institutionalizing all negotiations regarding climate change and biodiversity maintenance. ASEAN, through many conflict resolution mechanisms, plays a crucial role in promoting regional peace. Among these are the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and the still ongoing negotiations regarding the Code of Conduct (COC). Herewith, ASEAN directly promotes maritime cooperation between the contending states in the region, even in areas such as scientific research. ASEAN’s direct mechanisms include the ASEAN-China Senior Officials Meeting and the ASEAN-China Joint Working Group to implement the DOC (JWG-DOC). Thus, these formalized institutions have the potential to play a vital role in conflict resolution.
However, none of these mechanisms or negotiations have led to any direct conflict resolution. This illustrates that China is not willing to cooperate with any of the claimant states, as China consistently rejects multilateral conflict resolution mechanisms. Part IX of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) classifies the South China Sea as an “enclosed or semi-enclosed sea,” which obliges China to cooperate with neighboring states and establish a common resource management framework. However, Beijing has not fully implemented these provisions.
Limitations of Environmental Diplomacy and Joint Resource Management
While global environmental governance through the UN or ASEAN has substantial potential to act as an arbiter in conflict resolution or to mitigate risks, there are certain impasses to this approach and the limitations of environmental diplomacy must be taken into account.
Since the last armed Sino-Vietnamese naval clash at Johnson South Reef in 1988, no major conflicts have arisen. However, this does not imply that the situation has improved. China still insists on bilateral conflict resolution mechanisms, while other coastal states are open to third party involvement as they have limited options in countering China alone.
Even though conflict resolution through joint resource management should have been a viable way to mitigate risks, it has proven to be less effective. Even something relatively simple, like conducting a joint seismic survey in 2008 by China, Vietnam, and the Philippines, failed. Since no common maritime resolution mechanism existed, the parties refused to concede any degree of their sovereignty. There have been some positive developments as well, such as China and Vietnam’s cooperation to establish a common fishery zone in the Gulf of Tonkin; however, oil has become a contention even there.
Another pitfall lies in the UN resolution itself: each of the claimants has its own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), guaranteed by UNCLOS. This grants them exclusive rights over their coastal waters and the management of resources within them.
Concluding Analysis
While environmental diplomacy could be an effective way to mitigate risks and reduce tension in the region, it is extremely difficult to find ways to prioritize environmental needs over short-term economic benefits. Joint resource management, preserving biodiversity, or managing fisheries is the only mutual sphere where claimant countries might find common ground for cooperation. Thus, scientific research, joint patrolling, and resource management through ASEAN or UN-affiliated forums is a feasible path to mitigating tensions. This does not imply resolving all territorial claims or foreign policy disputes; however, it creates a foundation and common ground for future dialogue, especially as their own economies, food supplies, and natural resources are at stake. Even here, China’s desire to approach the issue unilaterally, and the Philippines’ and other actors’ attempts at international engagement, make cooperation less likely. However, in an era of growing interdependence, where environmental degradation and ecological crises are closely linked to trade, economic relations, and the rise of nationalistic claims, conflict resolution becomes vitally important. Environmental diplomacy has the potential not only to support the ecological sustainability of the region but also to resolve or mitigate nationalistic sovereignty tensions and prevent further escalation.
Mariam Bregadze is a Georgian political researcher with international experience in policy institutes and think tanks across several countries. She specializes in Central and Eastern European politics, focusing on populism and far-right movements. Mariam pursued advanced studies in Russian, East European, and Eurasian affairs at the University of Glasgow, Corvinus University of Budapest, and the University of Tartu.
