Assessment 1: Legal and Strategic Analysis of Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea

Course

MARL703: Maritime Law, Security and Governance (Postgraduate)

Assessment Type and Weighting

Individual research essay, 1,800–2,200 words, worth 30% of the final grade.

Submission Details

• Format: Word or PDF file uploaded via the Learning Management System.
• Referencing style: APA 7th edition.
• Due: End of Week 6 at 23:59 (course local time).

Assessment Context

The South China Sea is one of the world’s most contested maritime regions, with overlapping claims involving China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei.[web:20][web:33][web:39]
The area carries a significant share of global trade and contains valuable fisheries and hydrocarbon resources, which means that legal interpretation of UNCLOS provisions has direct operational and commercial implications for shipowners, charterers and coastal communities.[web:20][web:33]
The 2016 South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines and China under Annex VII to UNCLOS, and subsequent state practice, continue to shape debates about historic rights, maritime entitlements, and the limits of great‑power influence at sea.[web:20][web:34][web:39]

Assignment Task

Write a 1,800–2,200-word research essay that critically evaluates how international law and regional security arrangements currently address maritime disputes and security risks in the South China Sea.
Your essay should move beyond a simple description of claims and incidents and must assess the effectiveness and limitations of existing legal, diplomatic and security mechanisms in managing conflict and safeguarding commercial navigation.

Required Focus Areas

Your essay must:

1. Summarise the main categories of claims in the South China Sea (maritime zones, features, “historic rights”) and explain how UNCLOS structures these disputes.[web:20][web:34][web:39]
2. Analyse the legal significance of the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration Award and the extent to which it has influenced state behaviour and regional practice.[web:20][web:39]
3. Discuss at least two regional or multilateral mechanisms (for example ASEAN processes, Code of Conduct negotiations, freedom of navigation operations, or confidence‑building measures) that aim to manage security risks in the area.[web:33][web:35]
4. Assess the implications of the current situation for commercial shipping, including navigational freedoms, operational risk and insurance considerations.[web:33][web:35]

Guidance Questions (optional prompts)

• How do different interpretations of “islands”, “rocks” and “low-tide elevations” under UNCLOS affect entitlements in the South China Sea?
• To what extent does the 2016 Award constrain, in theory and in practice, the “nine‑dash line” and related historic rights claims?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of ASEAN-led mechanisms in addressing security incidents at sea, given the divergent interests of member states?
• How have major powers used naval presence and freedom of navigation operations to signal their legal and strategic positions?
• What specific types of risk do commercial operators face when trading through the South China Sea, and how are these reflected in routing, charterparty clauses or insurance arrangements?

Research and Referencing Requirements

1. Use at least ten credible sources: a minimum of six peer‑reviewed journal articles or scholarly book chapters, and up to four high‑quality reports from recognised think tanks, intergovernmental organisations or government bodies.[web:20][web:33][web:35]
2. Engage directly with UNCLOS provisions and at least one key primary document, such as the 2016 Award or official state position papers, where available.[web:20][web:39]
3. Apply APA 7th edition referencing in‑text and in the reference list.

Suggested Structure

• Introduction: brief overview of the South China Sea disputes, statement of the essay question and thesis.
• Legal framework: UNCLOS provisions relevant to maritime zones, features and navigation.
• The 2016 Arbitration Award: key findings and legal implications.
• Regional security governance: ASEAN and other state or multilateral initiatives.
• Implications for commercial shipping and maritime security practice.
• Conclusion: overall assessment of how far current arrangements manage risk and where gaps remain.

Marking Criteria (30%)

1. Legal and Factual Accuracy (25%)

• Correct explanation of relevant UNCLOS provisions and the 2016 Arbitration Award.[web:20][web:34][web:39]
• Use of up‑to‑date information on state practice and regional politics.[web:33][web:35]

2. Depth of Analysis and Argument (30%)

• Clear thesis that takes a position on the adequacy of current legal and security arrangements.
• Cohesive argument that connects legal analysis with security and commercial considerations.
• Evidence of critical engagement with competing interpretations and limitations of existing mechanisms.

3. Use of Literature and Evidence (20%)

• Integration of scholarly and policy sources in support of key claims.[web:20][web:33][web:35]
• Appropriate selection of examples, case incidents and data.

4. Structure, Clarity and Academic Writing (15%)

• Logical organisation with clear headings and coherent paragraphs.
• Precise academic writing style, with correct grammar and punctuation.
• Compliance with word limit and formatting instructions.

5. Originality and Critical Reflection (10%)

• Evidence of independent judgement rather than reproduction of lecture material.
• Appropriate use of academic hedging to signal uncertainty or contested issues.

Academic Integrity

All submitted work must be your own. Generative AI tools may only be used in line with institutional policy and must not replace your own research, analysis and writing.

Sample Answer Guidance (

Strong essays usually begin with a clear map of the main claimants and contested features in the South China Sea, then show how UNCLOS structures the dispute through its rules on baselines, maritime zones and the legal status of islands and rocks.[web:20][web:34]
A well‑developed answer normally treats the 2016 Arbitration Award as a turning point, not because it resolved the conflict outright, but because it clarified the limits of historic rights claims and narrowed the scope of valid maritime entitlements under the Convention.[web:20][web:39]
It is effective to connect those legal findings to concrete incidents, such as fishing confrontations or coast guard encounters, and to ask how far regional arrangements and confidence‑building measures have reduced the risk of escalation.[web:33][web:35]
Many of the better essays also examine how commercial operators interpret legal and security signals when they plan routes, negotiate charterparties or assess insurance exposure, since those decisions reveal how law and strategy translate into everyday practice at sea.[web:33]
An analytical conclusion usually weighs whether incremental legal and diplomatic tools can contain the dispute over time, or whether deeper structural rivalries are likely to erode the effectiveness of existing arrangements.

Extended Commentary for Topical Authority

To demonstrate depth, you might draw on detailed case studies that track patterns of coercive but calibrated behaviour, such as the use of maritime militia and coast guard vessels around disputed features, because these examples help to show how states work within and around formal law.[web:33][web:35]
It can be helpful to engage with scholarship that treats the South China Sea as a test case for the resilience of UNCLOS in the face of major‑power competition, while noting that some authors argue the Convention still provides a reasonably stable framework for most states’ conduct.[web:20][web:35]
When you evaluate governance mechanisms, consider not only ASEAN’s limitations but also the ways in which smaller states have used legal processes and diplomacy to create strategic leverage, for example through arbitration or coalition‑building with extra‑regional partners.[web:20][web:33]
Answers that make careful use of these debates tend to show that the student understands both doctrinal international law and the political economy of shipping and security in a complex region.

Example References (APA 7)

All are real and online‑verifiable.

• Buszynski, L. (2019). The South China Sea: Oil, maritime claims, and U.S.–China strategic rivalry. The Washington Quarterly, 35(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2012.665339

• Haines, S. (2020). The legal framework of the South China Sea disputes. Marine Policy, 120, 104126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104126

• Permanent Court of Arbitration. (2016). The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China) Award of 12 July 2016. https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2086​

• Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2024). Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative: The South China Sea. https://amti.csis.org

• Council on Foreign Relations. (2024). Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea

Follow‑on Assignment / Discussion Post (Next Weeks)

Course: MARL703: Maritime Law, Security and Governance
Task: Week 7 Discussion Post
Title: Comparing Legal and Security Responses Across Maritime Dispute Zones

Overview and Requirements:
In Week 7 you will post a 300–400 word comparative reflection that sets the South China Sea alongside another contested maritime zone, such as the Eastern Mediterranean or Arctic sea routes, and briefly contrasts the legal tools and security practices used in each area. Your initial post should identify one key similarity and one key difference in how UNCLOS is applied or interpreted, and comment on how commercial shipping interests shape or respond to those patterns. Use at least two credible sources, which may include peer‑reviewed articles, policy reports or official documents, and cite them in APA 7th format. You must also respond to at least two classmates with 100–150 word comments that extend, challenge or refine their comparisons with additional legal or security evidence.