Political International Relations Theory: Structural Realist Approch to the China's Spartly Island Dispute

Structural Realism

Structural realism emerged in the 1960s and 70s. It shares much of the concepts with the classical realism. Both Realisms agree with the three ‘S’s.

Statism: States as the primary actors in international politics
Survival: The single most important goal of all states.
Self-Help: The anarchic nature (lack of overarching authority) of international politics and the mistrust between states results in states relying on their own for their survival.

However, structural realists argue that the behavior of states in international politics can be analyzed not only because of the pessimistic human nature but also the system itself. They argue that the system encourages or discourages certain behaviors and actions of states in international politics.

This blog looks to analyze the Spartly Islands dispute in the South China Sea by the use of the structural realism approach.

Spartly Islands Dispute

China currently has over 20 ongoing territorial disputes ranging from the long historical dispute between the mainland and Taiwan to the recent symbolic dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands conflict with Japan. However, Beijing’s interests in the Spartly Island dispute differ from the other territorial disputes as the islands have a significant economic value.

Economic Values of the Spartly Islands

According to the Chinese reports, 18 metric tones of Oil is estimated to lie beneath the islands. To understand the 18 metric tones in a more understandable measurement, it is enough to fuel the Chinese economy for the next 50 years.

The islands offer a large fishing reserve.Fishing industry in China is a large part of their economic sector as they account for 8% of the world's entire catch.

The islands are also one of the busiest naval commercial shipping lanes in the world. In 2010, more than half of the super-tank cargo ships as well as a quarter of the world’s traded crude oil passed through the islands.

The economic value of the islands is estimated to worth more than a trillion dollars.Brunei, China, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam are trying to legitimize their claims of the ownership over the trillion dollar islands.

Possible Resolutions

Three Possible Resolutions and Three Structural Realist Objections.

An international debate in the United Nations (UN) to judge the legitimacy of all parties’ claims can be a possible resolution. However, a structural realist would argue that the UN is a forum to discuss the national interests of their own state. Because China has a higher military and economic capabilities compared with the other South Asian states, a debate in the UN is likely to reflect the voices of the Chinese claims (More capabilities) over the other states(Less capabilities). A structural realist would add that the international politics does not operate on a moral code, and that the capacity of states as the determining factor.

The second possible resolution is to share the economic benefits between the states. However, structural realists reject the notion of collective progression as the states focus on their own short-term gains. In the current neo-liberal capitalist international system, economic wealth is one of the most important factors in determining a state’s strength. The South Asian states (regarded as either developing or less-developed) would not back down from their claims of ownership as the economic benefits from the islands are crucial for their state survival in the current neo-liberal capitalist system. China on the other hand, is regarded as one of the strongest (economic and military capabilities) states in the world.Despite their current strength, they crave for more strength and capabilities.. This behavior can be analyzed by an offensive realist approach, as they argue that the states should become as strong as they can to become the hegemon of the region without worrying about offending other states.

The third possible resolution is an outbreak of war. China has a far greater military capability compared with the other South Asian States. However, a structural realist would argue that there is an invisible hand or an invisible code of conduct in international politics. Though states behave accordingly to their own national interests, this invisible code of conduct restricts certain actions and behaviors of states. Despite the greater military capabilities of China, the Spartly Island dispute is unlikely to result in war due to pressure from the invisible international political code of conduct.

Conclusion

We cannot be sure of the outcome over the Spartly Islands dispute, nor be sure of when the dispute will end. However, we can be sure that no state will back away from their claims of ownership over the trillion dollar islands. An economic value that would ensure the survival of South Asia states in the neo-liberal capitalist system or ensure China as the regional hegemon.