The rapidly unfolding reconfiguration of societies in the world today brings into question long-held systems of thought and action with respect to international relations, state-citizen interactions, concepts of national identity, territoriality, and national sovereignty. 

States are becoming less and less able to assert their notions of national sovereignty in the face of globalizing actors and powerful hegemonic players who assert their expansionary policies in almost every corner of the globe. But globalization’s ugly face has also become more and more apparent. 

Widespread poverty, unemployment, deficient social protection, landlessness, deteriorating productive sectors and ecological atrocities in many developing societies have caused a global trend of overseas contract work (both short- and long-term) or permanent migration to more developed economies. 

Multiple identities

Prominent Japanese scholar Kinhide Mushakoji sees these as creating “pockets of communities with dual or multi-identities, thus blurring further and bringing into question the notion of a single national identity.”

Mushakoji notes that the “massive influx of foreign migrants forming diaspora settler communities” has given rise to “multi-identity, multi-ethnic, and multi-cultural societies” Thus, a new model of citizenship is being created based on “multiple identities combined according to the principle of subsidiarity. “

This new situation brings about a regional identity shared by citizens of neighboring countries where divergent national identities are recognized and respected while at the same time rejecting the narrow view that national identity is the only legitimate identity. Could these new multi-ethnic identities be harbingers of new ways to address territorial conflicts that are currently mired in the belief in singular national identities?

Territorial maritime conflicts exist in both Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia: 1) disputes over the Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands among China, Taiwan and Japan; 2) conflicts over the Dokdo (Takeshima) Island between Korea and Japan; 3) disputes over vital parts of the South China Sea among the Philippines, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and Indonesia; 4) disputes over the Kuril Islands between Japan and Russia; and 5) conflicting claims between China and Taiwan over the Pratas (Dongsha) Islands in the northeastern South China Sea.

Discussions and debates on ongoing territorial disputes in Asia have focused almost exclusively on the issues of nationalism, national identity, sovereignty, territorial integrity, state boundaries and similar concerns.

Given the changing global configurations and evolving notions of national identity, there is a need to shift the discussion away from these divisive issues and focus instead on the concerns that unite the parties and peoples involved. 

5 notions to address disputes

Certain concepts can help address territorial disputes between countries. The first is the idea of a common pool resource (CPR) advocated by Nobel economics laureate Elinor Ostrom. Based on the theory of collective action, CPR refers to individuals being able to “achieve an effective form of governing and managing their own commons [through] a binding contract to commit themselves to a cooperative strategy … to share equally the sustainable yields from the natural resources under their control.”

Ostrom conceived of “a natural or man-made resource system that is sufficiently large as to make it costly (but not impossible) to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use.” 

A second notion is that propounded by the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (Unclos III) which asserts that “some localities belong to all humanity and that their resources are available for everyone’s use and benefit, taking into account future generations and the needs of developing countries.”

Unclos III proclaims these resources as the “common heritage of mankind” and therefore “belong to everyone and [are] to be exploited by all.” According to political scientist Teresa Encarnacion Tadem, this is in opposition to the free-market-oriented view of advanced nations like the United States of “freedom of the seas”—i.e., “that they belong to no one and can be exploited by anyone.” 

It is equally important to examine the historical background of territorial disputes where past experiences rejected the modern notion of a “fixed inherent territory” which fans counterproductive ultra-nationalist sentiments. 

A public appeal made by Japanese citizens in 2012 called for an end to clashes over sovereignty and for disputing parties to instead pursue dialogue and consultation to come to an understanding over resources and shared interests.

The group proposed a third notion—the joint development, management, use, and distribution of the resources in the areas of dispute as the only way forward. This will enable the shifting of the seeds of conflict which breed territorial nationalism, and instead use them as a foundation for regional cooperation.

In 2013, the Minjian East Asia Forum in Taipei called for people-to-people networking to express peoples’ voices that extend beyond borders. Culled from a Sichuanese dialect, and in the context of the Forum, “minjian” refers to the “nongovernmental, popular voices and organizations initiated by the people.” 

The Forum’s proposal is for the transformation of disputed islands and waters into “spheres of border interaction” (people can freely interact and move around), “subsistence spheres for neighboring communities” (people share the space and resources for their daily subsistence), and “demilitarized zones” (demilitarization of the islands and the territorial seas around them).

Scholar-activist Rasti Delizo asserts that the South China Sea’s “strategic mineral and aquatic resources cannot be claimed by just a few and in the name of ancient empires that have long ago disappeared into the library of world history.” He deplores states labeling and attaching “specific country-oriented names to the [waters as] portraying a misplaced pride in national chauvinism.”  He proposes instead the objective renaming of the South China Sea as the “Southeast Asian Sea.”

As a fifth option for addressing territorial disputes, Delizo argues for the transformation of the South China Sea into a shared regional area of essential commons (SRAEC) where “all the commonly essential natural maritime resources that are now presently found (and have yet to be discovered) within the parameters of the Southeast Asian Sea have to be collectively shared by all stakeholders.” 

Multilateralism, not belligerent nationalism

All these alternative approaches to resolving territorial conflicts have commonalities and hinge on the principles of collective action, multilateralism, a shared regional identity, and people-to-people solidarities. Notions of absolute sovereignty, permanent territorial rights, and belligerent nationalism are counterproductive, pointless, and can only lead to escalation of the conflict and, eventually, all-out war. 

If properly harnessed, crucial roles in the resolution of territorial disputes could be played by peoples holding multiple identities which cut across national borders. At the same time, the rights and welfare of the less privileged sectors of society, particularly small-scale fishers, have to be upheld and their livelihoods protected and developed. 

Noted China Studies scholar Aileen Baviera reminded us that “the crux of the matter is that either on land or in water, but even more so in water, there are no such things as purely ‘natural’ boundaries. Ultimately all boundaries are political.”

Baviera also lamented that the politicalization of boundaries has given rise to “territorialization.” She inquired whether “anyone can really rule the South China Sea” as if “oceans can be tamed and fenced off like the land.” She cited the “folly” of governments letting “their primordial instincts get them.” 

In conclusion, Baviera offered this insight: “I cannot help but think of how presumptuous and foolish men are to think that this all belongs to certain countries because, once upon a time, some person named or mapped or fished or navigated there before anyone else did. These reefs and shoals, these waters, were here long before today’s modern nation-states emerged, and they will be here long after many have passed from the scene.”
Eduardo C. Tadem, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of Asian Studies, University of the Philippines Diliman. This piece was abridged and revised from Eduardo C. Tadem, “Alternative approaches to territorial disputes in Northeast and Southeast Asia,” UP CIDS Policy Brief 2019:12, which in turn was an expanded version of Eduardo C. Tadem, “Territorial Disputes in East Asia,” Talk of the Town, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Aug. 3, 2013. These were based on paper presentations at the Fifth International NGO Conference on History and Peace, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea, July 22-24, 2013, and at the Conference on International Relations & Development, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, Aug. 22-23, 2013.

Read more: Gov’t urged: Defend, assert territorial integrity in West Philippine Sea