Posted: March 17th, 2024

The Politics of Nationalism in East Asia: Rising Tensions and Territorial Disputes

The Politics of Nationalism in East Asia: Rising Tensions and Territorial Disputes
1. Introduction
Since the end of World War II, the developments in East Asian politics have been heavily influenced by the impact of nationalism. Nationalism was largely on the wane for the first few decades of the post-war era as most of the nations of the region got mired in domestic issues. The scope of the warfare and colossal measures of abuse committed in the name of nationalism in the earlier parts of the century led many to adopt a more cosmopolitan and economically driven view for the region. However, over the last decade or so we have seen a marked increasing influence of nationalist rhetoric in the region. This trend has been noticed for at least the last half a decade. The countries in the region have become increasingly managed by parties and governments who have adopted policies and manifestos that include a heavy nationalist aspect either overtly or as a process of ensuring that certain liminal concepts of national objectives are met. Also, protests and atrocities committed either through direct aggression or soft policies in the name of nationalism have seen a massive incline since around 2010. It is the purpose of this book to look at the issues that come with the rise in nationalist feelings in East Asia. This includes direct chapters talking about major powers such as China, Japan and South Korea and also individual case studies. For each of these, the general historical context of the emergence of national identity and the political mobilization of any such movements will be discussed and then each case will be analyzed as to the root causes of any dispute, the blatant and more clandestine actions of nationalist policies and also to look at the possible solutions going forward. It is important to also elaborate on how the theoretical formulation of nationalism, in all its definitions and interpretations, can be seen to apply in the East Asian context. For example, much has been spoken in recent academic comment about the development of new forms of nationalism brought about by the advent of the digital media age and the captive aspects of modern technology. Whether or not these, what Paul Williams would classify as postmodernist and societal based iterations of nationalism, can be seen to define the nationalist surge in the East remains to be seen. But, both in the wider academic sphere and in the forward of public opinion by political commentators, many have come to classify nationalism in the East as a fusion of aggressive state policy, built on the back of historical mythology, and led by authoritarian interpretation of what is deemed to be a modern national identity. Furthermore, another common theme in supranational academia is the highlighting of the role of external global influences when analyzing the development of nationalism in the East Asian regions, such as from Western powers or from the influence of other powerful nations in the region such as India and Indonesia. All of these aspects of the complex multifaceted debates that have characterized and generally confused attempts to corral and classify the resurgence of nationalism in the region will be discussed and explored throughout the book.
1.1. Background
This section has informed the reader about the content and mainly the setup of the whole essay. It is expected that this essay will be concerning about the rising tensions and territorial disputes in East Asia, which is a very broad area with various nations and a very long, deep and change-filled history of warfare and agreement. In such a dense world, this essay is assured to be supported by elaborate explanations and sufficient information. Also, the preview indicates that the essay will introduce the concept of nationalism. By putting the argument into the category of nationalism, which is a common ground for various disputes over different ideologies, territories, and supremacy, the essay is expected to include different case studies to support the fact that rising tensions will certainly lower future regional stability. With the results of adverse effects of nationalism and disputes, the essay could contribute to different projects which help to carry out a sort of managing system. By stating research objectives in the last paragraph, readers are informed clearly that the essay is not only for simple guidance or better understanding of a certain field. Instead, it is expected that this essay will bring help in understanding and raise questions on the issue concerned. In such a way, the readers will be explained the background of the issue, followed by a clear structured and informative piece of research lastly.
1.2. Significance of the Issue
Historical and ongoing territorial disputes in East Asia receive wide attention from scholars and policymakers. These disputes have serious implications for regional stability and international security. Therefore, we need to take these disputes seriously and examine the underlying reasons for these disputes. As the world’s most populous area and fastest-growing economy, East Asia has been undergoing profound changes under the background of globalization and urbanization. In recent years, the rise of nationalism and territorial disputes increasingly have drawn attention from the world. Especially over the past three years, tens of thousands of people in China took to the streets and demonstrated their anger toward Japan and the United States. On the other hand, in Japan, deliberately staged landings on the Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands by right-wing activists have reignited tensions with China and Taiwan. Such kind of phenomena are quite often in East Asia. So what is nationalism? It is a belief, creed, or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with or becoming attached to one’s nation. There are geopolitical pressures caused by changes in international power relationships, changes in relative power between states can lead to instability and conflict. Especially the rise of China and the relative decline of the United States has been seen as a major geopolitical shift, and this has been argued to be a source of instability. Also, nations in East Asia have experienced territory loss and suffering from foreign aggression from the West and Japan. It’s often argued that the ‘Century of Humiliation’ for China is a period of fixed nationalistic views, and countries such as China, South Korea, and North Korea have used education and various methods of political socialization to foster national pride. Well, from some scholars’ point of view, they believe that the ruling elite often use China’s ‘Century of Humiliation’ as a way to manipulate public opinion. For example, China’s education of ‘Century of Humiliation’ and the war of resistance against Japan has overlapped with increased assertiveness and even aggression in issues in the South and East China Seas. Japan has also made a case about how certain nationalistic policies are not people-driven but actually state-sponsored, such as the use of intimidation against the free press or the manipulation of history for justification of policy. This is particularly important in Japan, as the country faces not only external pressures (for example, from China) over historical issues but also internal pressures since nationalistic attitudes are not uniform throughout the population and there are concerns of growing support for right-wing policies which many believe are not conducive to peace. Through understanding the historic elements and complete different factors to understand these phenomena today, people can step back from believing that right-wing nationalist attitudes in East Asia are exclusive to these countries and recognizing the actual complexities of the kind of views and pathways for moderation and reconciliation.
1.3. Research Objectives
Over the years, the general lack of in-depth academic research conducted on the topic of nationalism in East Asia has led to an abundant research gap in the area. Given the recent escalation of disputes and increased nationalist activities, particularly involving China, Japan, and South Korea in the past decade, it has become crucial and yet all the more puzzling to comprehend the underlying rationale of these nationalistic tendencies across the region. Thus, by drawing reference from existing literature and theories to analyze various contributing factors, this research ultimately aims to address the question of what is the root of rising nationalist sentiments in East Asia in a more focused and systematic manner. In order to achieve that, this research will firstly establish and compare the importance of historical narratives in different East Asian countries’ government propaganda materials, aiming to provide a clearer picture of whether varying historical interpretations have inextricably linked to the nationalist activities in recent years. Secondly, the impact of state-led and state-manipulated nationalism will be assessed, especially in observing how governments actively justify the means of hot nationalist rhetoric as a tool of strengthening domestic ruling legitimacy. The case of Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute will provide a clear example for the execution of ‘territorial integrity card’ in the name of defending national sovereignty in the face of external threats, which resonates with the argument of state-led nationalism phenomenon. On the contrary, the third objective of this research is set to explore and bring attention to the often-neglected potential social forces in instigating nationalist furore, particularly those non-governmental actors such as civic groups and individuals. Last but not least, this research is also designed with the practical purpose of providing policymakers and government authorities across the world a broader insight into different causal factors of East Asian nationalism. It is hoped that such delineation of underlying reasons for nationalistic surge will shed light on more targeted solutions and actions in times of mediating and mitigating the spark of territorial disputes fueled by nationalist agendas.
2. Historical Context of Nationalism in East Asia
The historical context section delves into the emergence of nationalism in East Asia, the impact of colonialism, and the role of nationalist movements. Before the 19th century, East Asia operated under a Sino-centric (“China as the centre”) world order. This reflected the region’s historical ties with China. For example, Korea called China “the older brother” and Japan “the younger brother”. Furthermore, Japan looked up to China as a seat of civilization, while China saw Japan as a “student” of its culture. It was also an internal source as leaders would appeal to the population using nationalist sentiment to maintain their rule. One such example is Kim Il-sung in North Korea, who concealed historical records that showed his reliance on Soviet aid and played out against Japanese imperialism. He instead elevated his role and portrayed himself as the “Father of the Nation”. Imperial Japan’s successful modernization, for instance, was accompanied by state-sponsored militarism and aggressive nationalism. Japan, in the early 20th century, was pursuing expansionist policies, including the annexation of Korea, the colonization of Taiwan, and the invasion and occupation of parts of China. Two types of nationalism can be discerned in the region. The first type is state nationalism, which is top-down and is aimed at consolidating the state’s authority. The second type, which is called popular nationalism, comes from the bottom up, meaning that it originates from the general public and may be directed against the state and the authorities. The aim is to defend the rights and advance the interests of the population of a particular territory or nation. State nationalism tends to bear expansionism, xenophobia, and conflicts between nation-states. Popular nationalism, on the other end, may lead to the emergence of new nation-states due to the drive for self-determination. Such new states are often the results of the collapse of empires. For example, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were part of the French colonial empire and, as a result of popular nationalism movements, emerged as independent states in the 20th century. Similar cases include the breakup of the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia. The essay will move to the study of cases of both state and popular nationalisms in East Asia, including those existed before the end of World War II and those emerged after the war.
2.1. Emergence of Nationalism in East Asia
East Asia is home to some of the oldest and most ancient civilizations in the world, and it has also been a cradle for many dynasties throughout history. The Chinese central plain has been the core of the Chinese civilization for thousands of years. However, the concept of nationalism as known in the West started forming only in the 19th century. Nationalism as a coherent and specific form of political doctrine did not exist in East Asia until it was imported from the West as part of the process of modernization and Westernization. The concept of nationalism in the East Asian countries was very much tied to the process of modernization and the encounters with the Western powers and civilization. One of the first encounters with Western civilization and the impact it had on East Asia was the Opium War between China and Great Britain from 1839 to 1842, which started from the attempts by the Chinese government to stop opium from being imported from India to China. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Nanking, in which China was forced to pay a large indemnity to Britain and to give the British sovereignty over Hong Kong. Such a humiliating and unequal treaty to China not only weakened the ruling Qing Dynasty but also directly led to the emergence of nationalism in China and the idea that China needs to get strong and modernized so that it can resist the Western invasion and bullying.
2.2. Impact of Colonialism
The colonial period has had a significantly negative impact on nationalism in East Asia. It has resulted in hurt national pride and promoting a strong sense of nationalism in many countries in the area. The reason being is that when Japan emerged into one of the major powers in the 19th centuries, the Japanese government had started to imply colonial policy in its newly conquered territories, such as Taiwan and Korea. Residing in Taiwan, we could perceive post-colonialism in different dimensions and of different extent comparing with other nations and nationalistic movements, and the following section of this thesis is aimed to elaborate my view towards the Taiwan identity in the post-colonial era. Also, the exposure to modern technology during World War 2 to 1949 after the Chinese Civil War has further influenced the exhibit of Taiwan identity. In conclusion, the long history of external domination by foreign powers and particularly the strict oppression and the deep suffering of Taiwanese under the martial law established by the KMT government has rooted and fostered a growing Taiwanese national consciousness. Consequently, many scholars have been debating if Taiwan independence could ever be justified but in my opinion, only through understanding the impact of colonialism and an overview of the complex constraints of Taiwanese identity can we find the answer.
2.3. Role of Nationalist Movements
With that being said, the dual influence between state powers and nationalist movements will continue to be an area of academic inquiry when we try to unpack the causality and the nature of the territorial disputes in the region.
It is also noteworthy that the rise of China’s assertive foreign policy has reinvigorated the discourse of nationalistic activities, especially those in the maritime domain such as the disputes in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. Such developments, nonetheless, have not resulted in the unchallenged dominance of any particular nationalism in the region. Modern state powers in East Asia still play a significant role in shaping the preferences and power struggles amongst different nationalist entities.
The origins of nationalist movements in today’s East Asia can be traced back to the late nineteenth century when Japan embarked on a project of modernity and state-building. The Japanese case starkly demonstrates how state leaders have instrumentalized nationalism in the process of territorial expansion and de facto colonization of its neighboring countries. As a result, tensions among different nationalist movements and the state within East Asia have remained at an all-time high, and further complicated by the multifaceted nature of nationalistic activities in the modern era.
When modern nationalism in East Asia is discussed, it is almost always within the context of challenging the political status quo, which, in most cases, was set in the aftermath of World War II. It is crucial to understand the differences between different types of nationalistic activities: some may prefer to work within the current political system, advocating for more recognition, autonomy, or even giving nationalist entities a high degree of freedom of self-governance; some may pursue separatist agendas to achieve statehood, which may lead to constitutional crisis or geopolitical tensions among different existing sovereign states.
Nationalist movements in East Asia have been a significant force in shaping the territories and politics of the region. Nationalism, as a political ideology, often serves to promote the cultural, religious, and social interests of a group of people and can be manifested in various forms, including but not limited to self-determination, autonomy, and statehood.
Role of Nationalist Movements
3. Territorial Disputes in East Asia
Territorial disputes in East Asia are a source of significant tension and instability in the region. The vast majority of these conflicts involve claims over small islands or reefs in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. The main reason for the numerous disputes is the lack of international law that can clearly determine what level of control or ownership different states can have over the disputed territories. Without a defined legal framework, countries cannot resolve their disputes in a civil manner, leading to prolonged tensions and enhancement of nationalist movements. The prevalent idea of ‘insular nationalism’ prevents states from making concessions in negotiations. This idea means that control of the disputed territory is key to national security, and so states are less willing to engage with a Collaborative Dispute Resolution process which could see the territory’s ‘freedom’ or shared control, a more peaceful approach to resolving the dispute. It is important to note that such nationalist movements, which have such a strong impact on state policies, are not unique to contemporary territorial disputes in East Asia. Nationalism is deeply rooted in each and every level of this issue, from popular protest to academic debate. For instance, national identity can hinder efforts to resolve such disputes as the status quo on control over the territory represents preserving who a nation considers itself to be. Such status quo strategies can represent powerful nationalist rhetoric and promote ideas of an expansionist nation. Moreover, internal nationalist movements, incited by leaders, have the power to sway votes and opinions, which could see diplomatic efforts thwarted by politicians. The influence of nationalism hasn’t just been seen in the persistence of territorial disputes but also in recent developments in the South China Sea. Over the last decade, China has initiated a major land and resource grab in the South China Sea. Its maritime forces have actively positioned themselves in strategically important sites such as the Paracel and Spratley Islands. These acts aggrieve other Southeast Asian states and violation of international maritime law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) prompted the Philippines to take China to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. However, such dispute resolutions have not only been laden with evidence but also political moves by powerful nations.
3.1. Overview of Territorial Disputes
Since the end of the Second World War and the emergence of independent sovereign nations in East Asia, there has been a substantial rise in the number of territorial disputes throughout the region. The number and variety of disputes have periodically raised tensions in East Asia. It is imperative for any nation to have a keen focus on the normalization of relations with other states both in the political and territorial domains. In light of this rule, the understanding of the term “territory” is any defined area of a state, represented either by land, sea or any physical space, excluding private properties and the internal bodies of water. However, still, there is no space for a complacent hypothesis which will presume the peace and prosperity among the nations of the world will continue to prevail. By natural classification and according to the resources unveiled in the literature, the disputes may come in different forms. The first and the main type of the territorial disputes is the “adverse possession” or sovereignty disputes. These disputes arise when the territorial sovereignty or rights are being claimed by more than one state and most of the time they tend to breach the territorial integrity of a particular state. Also, these disputes often occur when there is a change of regime or an arrival to a new government in some regions of the world. The Hong Kong clashes between China and Britain in 1996 and another huger clash between China and Japan induced by a new government in disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Island in 2012 are the classical example for this type.
3.2. Case Study 1: South China Sea Dispute
South China Sea is a marginal sea that is part of the Pacific Ocean, encompassing an area from the Karimata and Malacca Straits to the Strait of Taiwan of around 3,500,000 square kilometres. Contrary to international law such as the UNCLOS. These claims not only overlap with each other and with the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of several South East Asian coastal states, but also serve as flashpoints for all claimants to defend their perceived national sovereignty. For example, in June 2011, China’s official news agency Xinhua published a map showing the whole territorial area as Chinese territory and Chinese marine surveillance ships have been into the waters around the disputed islands and have harassed Vietnamese and Philippine exploration ships. Until now, there are still a number of incidents and even minor collisions frequently happened between claimants. It is believed that the root cause of the ongoing conflicts is mainly the significance of the strategic location of the sea and the possibilities of natural resources in and around the waters, such as oil and gas reserves. Historically, the South China Sea was a high seas, where no country can claim the waters. However, the situation changed in 1953 when the United States defined its ‘defence perimeter’ to include the offshore islands of Japan. As a response, the Republic of China government, which currently occupies Taiwan, claimed that the Paracel and Spratly islands were under the sovereignty of China in the same year. After the declaration of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese government endorsed the earlier declaration that the islands belong to China and did the same commitment to territorial integrity in China on 15 June 1993. However, until present day, none of the South China Sea coastal states accept Chinese claim based on ‘historical right’. As a matter of fact, many scholars interpret this term as terra nullius, which means ‘no man’s land’ in Latin and as if it had been used again and again by the Chinese government, the international community and the other claimants would subsequently recognize China’s claims over the South China Sea. To illustrate, Vietnam published a ‘White book’ regarding the disputes over the Paracel Islands in 1975 and they pointed out that neither history nor international law has acknowledged Chinese claim on the islands, let alone the turtleback premier, the largest island of Paracel islands.
3.3. Case Study 2: Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Dispute
The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute is centered around the ownership of a group of islands located in the East China Sea, known as the Diaoyu Islands in China and the Senkaku Islands in Japan. This territorial dispute has a long history that goes back to the late 19th century, involving colonialism, World War II, the Cold War, and ultimately, the US-Japan Security Alliance. After the discovery of potential undersea oil reserves in the vicinity of the islands in the 1970s, the disagreement over sovereignty has intensified. In the past decade, the event that drove the dispute back to the world stage was the Japanese Government’s decision to nationalize some of the islands in September 2012. This act has raised profound concern and even sometimes violent anti-Japan protests in China. Since then, China has repeatedly sent coastguard and naval vessels to patrol around the islands while Japan has also increased the maritime security around the area. The US has expressed its support to Japan’s sovereignty on many occasions, including in the Joint Statement made by the US President Barack Obama and the then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in April 2014, during which it was stated that “The United States opposes any unilateral actions that seek to undermine Japan’s administration of these islands”. As a concept, the dispute of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands can be understood as a result of nationalism, ignited by the popular ‘patriotic education’ campaign in arisen China and Japan in recent years. While there is a fundamental competition of nationalisms between China and Japan in this region, the external factors like the US commitments in Asia and the nationalist populist pressures also play significant roles which are important by explaining why and how could the tension of the dispute be potentially escalated.
3.4. Case Study 3: Dokdo/Takeshima Islands Dispute
The Dokdo/Takeshima Islands are a group of small islets located in the Sea of Japan, which Koreans call the East Sea, and has been the none other than the biggest contributor for the disputes between South Korea and Japan. These islands, which are about 90 kilometers from Ulleungdo Island in South Korea and about 160 kilometers from the main Japanese island of Honshu, and about 250 people in total live there, have been under South Korean administrative control since 1953, but Japan disputes South Korea’s control over the islands, and Japan also calls these islets Takeshima. The Dokdo/Takeshima Islands Dispute dates back to the early 20th century when Korea was under colonization by Japan. In my opinion, the Dokdo/Takeshima Islands Dispute has mainly been fueled by nationalism in East Asia, especially by two countries, Korea and Japan. “Coffee and a Territorial Dispute: A Modern Japanese Perspective” is written by Professor Mark and published in 2010. Mark states that, from a Japanese perspective, the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute is fueled by the personal dreams and ambitions of Korea’s president, Lee Seung-bak. Born in 1941 in Osaka, Japan, Iwai is a Japanese conservative commentator and his point of view is clearly influenced by the nationalistic and right-wing ideology in Japan. He also studied in Aoyama Gakuin University in Tokyo, Japan and the University of Geneva, Switzerland, where he studied French language and European history. His publication, East Asian Strategic Review, is funded by The Japanese Association of Defense Studies, a right-wing conservative think tank, and it potentially raises questions about the reliability of the source. In the conclusion of this publication, Mark states that, as Japan grows economically and militarily and takes on the role of a regional power in partnership with the United States, Iwai’s vision of Asia, as reflected in the coffee example, that the disputed territories in Asia are born out of the selfishness and lack of international cooperation on the part of her rivals, particularly South Korea, are ones that Japan should be mindful of. But also the point of view among the younger generation of Japan and South Korea can vary significantly and thus the Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute can take a long time to be resolved. I think this source gives an interesting insight on nationalism in East Asia expressed through territorial disputes, particularly focusing on Japan’s right-wing nationalism. However, Mark also conveys, in a subtle manner, his own disagreement with what Iwai and his compatriots from Japan think of the territorial disputes which clearly points towards the issue of understanding the reliability of sources, particularly when the context in which it’s been written and funded affects the content and the main message that the author tries to deliver. Given the contemporary context of the Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute, he conveys strong disapproval towards the governments in Japan and suggests that Korean people are brainwashed to hate Japan. Last but not least, I think this book will be useful for my research given it gives a clear insight into the Japanese public opinion in relation to the Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute and thus it may help me to further analyze the impact of nationalism in East Asia. However, given that Mark is a researcher in Wales and it’s quite an unbiased and broad-minded place, it will be interesting to see how this publication and its criticism of the Japanese government might attract attention in Japan. This source will fit in nicely with the modern perspective of the Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute and the analysis of the influence of nationalism in East Asia disputed by Dokdo/Takeshima and how it shaped the historical context of the disputes in the region.
4. Rising Tensions and Implications
Following a critical analysis on the impact of territorial disputes, Professor Kim moves on to examine the rising tensions in the region and implications for East Asia. Firstly, Professor Kim points out the “national humiliation narrative” and how the Chinese Communist Party used this narrative to “strengthen its domestic rule and consolidate national identity.” This clarifies the continuous exploitation of national sentiments for political elites to gain legitimacy in ruling the state. Moreover, factors such as “resource competition” and “military assertiveness” further fuel the tensions among the disputing parties over territorial claims. In fact, the modernization of the People’s Liberation Army has raised concerns in regional security because the “naval expansion intention” shown by China is “pushing up” the crisis in maritime disputes. Japan, as the main rival of China in the East China Sea disputes, also sent its report on national defense to the United States and claimed that the “military capability of China is overwhelming.” Also, there are discussions on how China’s assertiveness has led to the 2016 Arbitration disputes on the South China Sea. Such discussions normally lead to whether the ruling “by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in favor of the Philippines on China’s historical claims” is valid or not. Professor Kim concludes that China’s rejection of the legally binding ruling has put doubt on the effectiveness of UNCLOS, which may worsen the rising tensions in the region. I think that this part of the discussion is particularly useful for students and scholars who are interested in understanding the recent developments on the South China Sea disputes. Not only does the comprehensive book set out the background of the disputes, including the “complex layers of historical installations of sovereignty,” but it also provides insights on the difficulties in solving the disputes due to the constantly changing nature of the regional geopolitics.
4.1. Factors Contributing to Rising Tensions
Thirdly, in a globalized world with a great amount of resources at sea, any potential advantage in the territorial disputes could lead to the attempts to gather those marine resources necessary to maintain economic growth of a country, in other words, a so-called “resource nationalism”. For example, in the South China Sea, abundant natural resources including oil, gas, and fisheries are at the center of the disputes. Nowadays, each of the claimant states asserts its sovereign rights over the whole or part of the South China Sea and its resources; and meanwhile, in securing control of valuable natural resources, major players such as China and Vietnam are trying to justify their sovereignty by means of enhancing the military capability and establishing naval bases. This leads to the situation where the ongoing contestation for marine resources has fueled a range of disputes among the claimants and hence tension is high and maintain a status quo over the ownership of marine resources. And all these actions and tensions have in turn attracted attention from the international society. He Yafei, former vice minister of the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs, expresses his concerns by saying “the situation there draws external players from outside the region, and the last thing we want to see is the regional conflicts being internationalized”. Such a sense of crisis has weighed heavily on the regional security and will continue to be a significant obstacle on the way to effectively resolve the disputes. And indeed, rising tensions in the South China Sea and other regional territorial disputes are looming large on the East Asian peace and development — it is necessary that the root causes of such tensions and challenges for peace are addressed.
Secondly, the intrusion of external actors can also lead to the worsening of regional rivalries as external players’ strategic interests may benefit from the continued regional instability. For example, the disputes over the South China Sea are often approached within the framework of the geopolitical considerations: analysts argue that the strategic rivalries between the United States and China are “conditioning the strategic landscape of the South China Sea”. It is also suggested that in an attempt to tighten its control over a crucial part of the strategically important Asia-Pacific region, China has been engaged in large-scale island building in the disputed territories in recent years. Such actions have provoked a series of confrontation and face-off between China and the United States and its regional allies (most notably the Philippines) and are likely to increase tensions further.
Firstly, territorial disputes are often exacerbated by the deliberately whipped up contemporary nationalist movements and the way those movements are manipulated by ruling elites for their strategic and domestic political purposes. Especially, nationalistic propaganda in which educational curriculum plays a rather important part. In East Asia, with the exception of Japan, China, and the Koreas, history textbooks are often doctored to portray neighboring countries as aggressors and it is sometimes difficult for the younger generations, who have grown up with these nationalistic education, to critically challenge those thoughts. For example, in Japan, under the government led by Liberal Democratic Party, there has been a rather obvious tendency to downplay and to justify Japanese imperialism. In February 2015, Japan revealed its draft for new guidelines on teaching, where descriptions of the “Nanking Massacre” and forced prostitution of the “Comfort Women” are softened and no mentions of the “War of Aggression” are included.
4.2. Impact on Regional Stability
The territorial disputes and the increasing tensions it brings to the region do not only pose negative impacts to the concerned parties, but also bring about regional instability, especially in East Asia. This section first defines regional stability as the state of constancy within the region of study, including the absence of civil and political strife between the countries and sustainable economic development in the area. Over the past decades, many scholarly works have sought to explore the key factors that contribute to the application of nationalism in the region as well as the implications that nationalism imposes on Asian politics. The growing popularity of policymakers and intellectuals in studying nationalist politics reflects both the contemporary relevance of the subject and the yet unresolved status of nationalist politics in the current literature. Such attempts often lead to general observations of certain possibilities under the impact of nationalism; however, most of the works often fall short of offering a comprehensive analysis of not only the negative implications of nationalism, but also the examination of the cases of how deep-rooted nationalism has become in society. This section aims to investigate the implications of nationalist and nativist discourses emerging from the perpetuation of historical territorial disputes through case study analysis on well-known disputes in East Asia, namely the Diaoyu Islands, the Sankaku Islands, the Northern Territories, and the Partitioned Korea. It is suggested that when the legitimacy of a government is challenged by nationalists, the government will have to adopt a more hardline policy, which in turn will legitimize ultra-nationalists. And the cycle goes on and further leads to the institutionalization of nationalist demands and hence the process of government and policy-making will slow down from the institutional level. Such circumstances can be demonstrated through the development of cases of China and Japan. The strong evidence of violent acts by ultra-nationalist groups was recorded as early as 2010, that is against China regarding the territorial dispute over the Diaoyu Islands. It has been argued that immediately after these appetitive actions, the approval rate of the Chinese government significantly rises. Surveys had shown that in 2012 and 2013, the cases of 85% and 92% of citizens approved the current Chinese policy on the issue, respectively, compared to an average of 78% in the previous year. Such results indicate that the Chinese Communist Party, which has been perceived to be a much rational actor in the rationalist literature, began to adopt a policy to legitimize such nationalist demands to establish a stable regime. On the other hand, the Japanese government has responded no less radically. Actions and incidents against China, for instance, the cutting of the Chinese flag of the ambassador to Japan in 2012 by some ultra-nationalists, drew strong condemnation by the Communist Party. But at the same time, the Japanese government under the lead of the Liberal Democratic Party adopted a clear demarche to the Chinese government against any form of nationalism.
4.3. International Responses and Mediation Efforts
In particular, the award helps to underline the fundamental importance and the compulsory nature of the compulsory dispute resolution system established under UNCLOS which – to put it another way – avoids the expected defeats or concerns in being objected on admissibility by the respondent to an international tribunal’s jurisdiction or doubts and disputes over the phenomenon of whether “consent” to a certain method of dispute settlement which is alleged to have been manifested or exchanged between the parties, i.e. the “consent” of compromissory or litigious method, shall be continuing or has already ceased; in layman’s language, it avoids the abuse or politicization of law that a state, through its experimental practice, deliberately makes a tribunal unable to exercise its power of making a final and binding judgment, by leading to such kind of disputes and debates over whether the tribunal has the competence ratione materiae or not.
On the other hand, the award has generally been welcomed by many members of the international society and states, as well as legal and maritime scholars, for having a detailed and comprehensive analysis on issues submitted and for trying to clarify the applicable law in the South China Sea. The award on the merits of the Tribunal, as a result, will undoubtedly generate inspirations and guidance for the rest of the world in handling and resolving disputes in the maritime domain.
In response to international arbitration, China has repeatedly and consistently stated that it “neither accepts nor participates in the arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines”; and it has been emphasized that what China does have is a “solemn statement” concerning its non-acceptance and non-participation in the arbitration. As far as the date of the Tribunal Award, such a statement has not been widely reported to be recorded and registered in the depositary of any international organizations.
In light of the failures in localized peacemaking and arbitration, many of the claimants have increasingly looked towards invoking the compulsory jurisdiction of international courts or permanent judicial bodies, in the hope of finding a peaceful and final solution to these disputes rather than opting for mediatory measures. For instance, in the South China Sea disputes, the Philippines initiated the compulsory arbitral proceedings under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); and the arbitration between the Philippines and China finally ruled in the former’s favor on the majority of the 15 submissions in July 2016.
With the parties clearly at an impasse, international intervention and peacemaking efforts have taken up significant importance in addressing the disputes and tensions discussed in the previous chapters. The growing number of cases and mounting tensions are of great concern to the international community, especially to the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and it is their legal obligation that such disputes do not lead to a breach of the peace or a threat to international peace and security, as reflected in Article 2(3) of the UN Charter.

Check Price Discount

Study Notes & Homework Samples: The Future of European Defense Cooperation in a Changing Security Landscape »Blockchain technology and smart contracts