Probing Vietnam’s Legal Prospects in the South China Sea Dispute

Abstract

of disputes. Vietnam claims the second-largest maritime area in the South China Sea dispute after China. A comparison of two recent cases—the arbitration between the Philippines and China and the conciliation between Timor-Leste and Australia—highlights the importance of selecting between binding and nonbinding decisions and framing a complaint. In particular, any legal action under UNCLOS should specify China’s claims and actions in areas that encroach on Vietnam’s claimed exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and violate international law. policy implications • Were Vietnam to build a case against China in the South China Sea based on maritime entitlements, rather than boundary delimitation, it should initiate a compulsory arbitration procedure pursuant of Article 287 and Annex VII of UNCLOS. In taking this step, Vietnam should seek a ruling regarding (1) entitlements to living and nonliving resources in its EEZ and continental shelf and (2) the legality of China’s claims and activities in the South China Sea. • While Vietnam continues to prefer negotiations, the growing assertiveness of China, including its activities in Vietnam’s claimed EEZ, may change this calculation. A potential victory in international arbitration could secure Vietnam’s sovereignty over its EEZ and continental shelf.