Thinking On The South China Sea Dispute And Its Settlement: Power Politics Or Politics Of Rights?

International law and international politics are closely related to, and exert influence on each other. Generally speaking, there are three different perspectives on how to view the interaction between them:realism, legalism and eclecticism. Realists hold that international politics determines the extent to how international law matters. They also believe that global legal regime is inherently power politics. According to legalism, international politics subjects to international law and norms, and is international legal order in essence. Eclectics maintain that international politics and international law influence and condition each other. On the issue of how to tackle international disputes and maintain international peace, realists advocate self-help and power maximization, eclectics propose politics and diplomacy, while legalists advise norms and law.The booming international organizations and thriving international regimes signify a bigger role for international law, which would not only constrain, but also mold actors’behaviors, and influence their identities and interests. With the democratization and legalization of international relations, international politics is gradually moving from power politics to politics of rights, and the resolution of international disputes would transform from force to diplomacy, and diplomacy to law.The South China Sea dispute is not only a political issue, but also a legal one. To get a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of it, We need synthesize the dual perspectives of international law and international relations, that’s to say, one the one hand to understand the sovereignty claims of the countries involved, and on the other hand analyze their official policies.In sovereignty aspect, though china’s claim over the South China Sea islands and their adjacent waters has ample historical and jurisprudential evidences, it’s still facing collective challenges from other countries in South East Asia, which include questioning the nine-dashed line on Chinese map, suspicion of China’s "historical rights" claim, and doubt about the legal status of Nansha islands.In policy aspect, there exist obvious disagreements on how to settle the South China Sea issues between China and other neighboring countries. China has appealed to reach agreement between direct parties concerned and expressed its opposition to the internationalization and ASEANization of the issues, while ASEAN countries are more inclined to utilize the collective strength of ASEAN as well as bring extra-regional countries in to hedge against any risks. Besides, China insists on direct consultation and negotiation, while neighboring countries tend to use judicial approaches.Whether the South China Sea dispute can be solved, and how can it be solved, have been the touchstone of China’s peaceful development. As we all know, China’s peaceful rising can’t do without just legal order or stable peripheral environment. However the truth is, the South China Sea dispute still remains unsolved and cooperation projects stalled. The dilemmas of South China Sea lie in:every country involved all insist their claims are based solidly on international law, and others’lack legal grounds; none of the claimants want to go to war, nor do they want to make compromises out of domestic political concerns; and all parties commit to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes, however, due to lack of mutual trust, every party is taking unilateral actions exactly contrary to their commitments.There are two strategic choices in front of China of how to settle the South China Sea dispute, realism and legalism. Though as a great power in East Asia, China has possessed comparative advantages over other claimants, and it has the very ability to widen the gap. However, this strategy is dangerous, nor are its consequences certain. Out of fear of great power rising and concern for its capacities and intentions, other neighboring countries around the South China Sea are increasingly inclined to utilize extra regional forces to balance or hedge against China, rather than taking China’s advice to settle the dispute through bilateral negotiation. Hence, the South China Sea issue is getting more and more complicated and internationalized.To properly manage and settle the South China Sea dispute, and to prevent countries outside the region from getting excessively intervened in regional affairs, China should iron out difference and seek for common interests with other involved parties, so as to ease ASEAN countries’concerns towards China’s rising and build a peaceful and stable regional environment for it. For this purpose, China should, according to the requirements of politics of rights, claim and preserve its territorial sovereignty as well as maritime rights in accordance with international law. Specifically, China should, on the one hand, claim its rights and interests in the South China Sea based strictly on international law, and on the other hand, adapt gradually to the judicial tendency of international dispute settlement, and began to study the possibility of using legal means to settle the South China Sea dispute as soon as possible, without giving up bilateral or multilateral negotiations at the same time.