Security dilemma in informal alliance politics: The case of dispute in South China Sea

[Zero_wing]

Man you guys have werid ideas of international law

 

[TaiShang]

Man you guys have werid ideas of international law

Oftentimes, law is what you make of it. Hence, we might be both right on what we argue about. But the issue of exit clause in UNCLOS, which both Philippines and Vietnam opted to utilize, is impossible to deny. Besides, as Martin says, UNCLOS cannot be executed retrospectively. What happens before UNCLOS stays outside the purview of UNCLOS.

Because you are Philippines vs. Philippines in the arbitration, we will most likely not hear these small technicalities.

 

[oprih]

Judging by america's recent weak reactions in the South China Sea issue, it seems that they are not really committed in backing the Philippines. I hope our next leader will wake up and see that america is not a trustworthy partner.

 

[Zero_wing]

Judging by america's recent weak reactions in the South China Sea issue, it seems that they are not really committed in backing the Philippines. I hope our next leader will wake up and see that america is not a trustworthy partner.

wow you're reading it wrong it typical chinese really first its deescalation measure if you people read real history you should know that. America is just standing by they have patrol the area and waiting for the ruling of ITCLOS

Oftentimes, law is what you make of it. Hence, we might be both right on what we argue about. But the issue of exit clause in UNCLOS, which both Philippines and Vietnam opted to utilize, is impossible to deny. Besides, as Martin says, UNCLOS cannot be executed retrospectively. What happens before UNCLOS stays outside the purview of UNCLOS.

Because you are Philippines vs. Philippines in the arbitration, we will most likely not hear these small technicalities.

Wow its like am talking to tantrum child who does not understand laws at all

 

[Jlaw]

Man you guys have werid ideas of international law

LOL, maybe it's you that lack the basic understanding of international law

 

[Zero_wing]

LOL, maybe it's you that lack the basic understanding of international law

ok tell me this then what the difference between municipal law and international law then?

 

[nang2]

ok tell me this then what the difference between municipal law and international law then?

I guess the main difference is the enforcement.

 

[Zero_wing]

I guess the main difference is the enforcement.

well tell more you almost got it right

 

[nang2]

well tell more you almost got it right

I cannot. That is all I know and still a guess.

 

[Zero_wing]

I guess you forgot this

1.3 The Role of Treaties
Even though the sources of international law are not hierarchical, treaties gain some degree of primacy among the sources of international law. Treaties serve different purposes. Some treaties have far reaching political impact such as peace settlements, alliances and nuclear testing bans. Others though less political, involve relationships between governments or government agencies and affect private parties. Most significantly, human rights conventions have sought to extend protection to all persons against governmental abuse. A treaty is formed by the express consent of its parties. A treaty’s text may permit some reservations, thus allowing a greater number of States to enter into a treaty at the sacrifice of certain objectives and purposes of the treaty. to name a few from the UN enable

 

[21stCentury]

Vietnam and Philippines would make likely candidates for China to gain modern high-tech warfare experience.

 

[Zero_wing]

Vietnam and Philippines would make likely candidates for China to gain modern high-tech warfare experience.

Well still waiting for that nuke you chinese warmongers said that was coming to us it's been 2 years still no nuke man its been so long waiting its boring Oh dark ages how i miss you

 

[nang2]

Well still waiting for that nuke you chinese warmongers said that was coming to us it's been 2 years still no nuke man its been so long waiting its boring Oh dark ages how i miss you

you must have heard that from some drunkard and taken it seriously.

 

[21stCentury]

Well still waiting for that nuke you chinese warmongers said that was coming to us it's been 2 years still no nuke man its been so long waiting its boring Oh dark ages how i miss you

Nuking Philippines? Overkill much? Just one single type 52d destroyer is worth more than the whole Filipino navy combined as it is.

 

[Aepsilons]

I would like to offer a brief conceptual evaluation of the situation in the South China Sea which appears to be evolving into a dilemmatic condition for the parties that position themselves against China (Mainland+Taiwan).

As the security structure evolves in the South China Sea, the major parties (manly Vietnam and the Philippines) are seen to become relatively more influential in their informal alliance with the US. This, coupled with the US’ Pivot strategy, could, on the surface, provide these two countries a unique window of opportunity in balancing their economic relations with China and security relations with the US. However, this improved status can also invite the danger of US’ entrapment in its economic relations with China or the two countries’ abandonment by the US in the face of a rising China.

Hence I would like to point to a possibility of security dilemma in regards to VT and PH's informal alliance with the US, arguing that recent swift developments in the SCS, VT & PH and the US might singularly find themselves in a precarious position where one side (VT and PH) fears abandonment whereas the other side (the US) fears entrapment. These fears might be further strengthened by China’s further claims on its core national interests and the US’ stronger posture and revamped strategy in the Asia-Pacific. Obviously, each actor has so far taken several serious steps in ensuring their core interests and these individual interests are not often compatible with each other.

Another aspect of security dilemma is that it might trigger a securitization of inter-state interaction in a spiraling way. It occurs if a state is not sure whether its opponent is a security seeker or expansionist. There remains the likelihood that the opponent is a mere security seeker; then, an emboldened action taken by one of the partners (VT & PH) in an alliance might be perceived as aggressive or provocative (Adversary dilemma) by the other (US).

Thus, the security dilemma in informal alliance politics suggests a threat of entrapment or abandonment for the parties involved in informal alliance (Alliance dilemma). Entrapment occurs when one side is dragged into a conflict that its partner has with a third party. It often happens when the interests of the allies (VT & PH - US) are not one and the same. However, even formal alliances do not guarantee the support of a partner if the partner (US) feels that a defection is more profitable or less costly than remaining true to the alliance. This becomes even a greater possibility if alliance is informal because in this case it is less binding and not institutionalized.

However, in the case of SCS dispute, VT & PH might face a greater risk of abandonment (than the US of entrapment) since in an increasingly multipolar world system, alliances are as easily made as deserted.

Therefore, further institutionalization and inter-governmental dialogue with China, with an entirely regional character, seems to be a viable way for VT & PH to manage their informal alliance politics. A neorealist interpretation does not appear feasible because of the scale of the actors that VT & PH has to deal with. For, as China's military capabilities grow, US security assurances suffer a relative decline.

This is worthy of being a published opinion piece in the Journal of Developing Economies, my friend. Excellent piece of penmanship, regional political dialectics and security legation initiative processes. I agree with you that a central variable in security parameters is the notion of American interventionism in the region. Tho we , East Asian integrationist academics have sometimes resigned the notion of American interventionism as a recent phenomenon evidenced at the end of the 2nd World War and after the total collapse of the Dai Nippon Teikoku (The Japanese Empire) and her extra-national territories in Asia and the Pacific, this paradigm has actually existed centuries prior.

Let me state that the notion of American interventionism being a catalytic of anti-historical or anti-progressivism is nothing new. It is a continuation of Anglo interventionism that started as early as the 17th century . In fact , if we were to apply a comprehensive historical reference , this Anglo interference was part of a greater socio-economical paradigm of European imperialism, and hegemony of this region. The America. Domination, my friend , is merely the extension of that historically parasitic and unilateralist interventionism.

From this, now we can direct our discourse. Looking forward to your input @TaiShang .