Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • IP22085 | Managing Expectations: South China Sea Code of Conduct Under Indonesia’s ASEAN Chairmanship
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    IP22085 | Managing Expectations: South China Sea Code of Conduct Under Indonesia’s ASEAN Chairmanship
    Aristo Darmawan

    29 December 2022

    download pdf
    The South China Sea Code of Conduct has languished since a single draft text was put forward as the basis for negotiation in 2018. Several fundamental issues have impeded resolution of the disagreements surrounding the code. These call for Indonesia, as incoming chair of ASEAN, to take an active approach to push the code through, argues ARISTYO DARMAWAN.

     

    COMMENTARY

    The idea of a South China Sea Code of Conduct (CoC), first mooted to create an ASEAN-China regional agreement to manage the maritime disputes between claimant states, has languished since both sides agreed in 2018 on a single draft text as the basis for further negotiations. Since then, no ASEAN chair has been able to break the deadlock and move the needle on the CoC. Expectations are high that as the primus inter paresof the regional grouping, Indonesia will be able to inject new momentum into the CoC negotiations during its chairmanship of ASEAN in 2023. Unfortunately, even though Indonesia has historically played a successful meditating role in critical junctures of ASEAN’s history, the intractable issues surrounding the CoC make it unlikely that Indonesia will be able to successfully negotiate an agreement in the coming year.

    A Long History

    Negotiations for the South China Sea CoC have had a long history. A proposal to formulate a code was first mooted in 1996, some four years after ASEAN’s 1992 Declaration on the South China Sea. However, favourable political conditions leading to regional negotiations for a CoC emerged only in 2016 in response to growing concerns among ASEAN countries regarding China’s land reclamation activities in the South China Sea. These culminated in a series of consultations on the CoC and the emergence of a single draft negotiating text in 2018. Unfortunately, the CoC remains in cold storage after negotiations were halted in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The CoC is not a regional agreement to resolve territorial claims and disputes with regard to the South China Sea. Instead, it seeks to serve as a guideline for conduct to prevent military incidents and manage conflict in the disputed area. In addition, it is envisaged that the CoC will set out regional cooperation initiatives on resource management, marine scientific research, and environmental protection in the disputed area. Some ASEAN countries would also want to see provisions in the CoC for protecting their fishermen when fishing in disputed areas.

    Indonesia’s Position

     Under the leadership of Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi, Indonesia had viewed the CoC as an important instrument to maintain peace and security in the disputed area. In bilateral meetings between Retno Marsudi and her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, the two leaders often emphasised the need to speed up the negotiations for the CoC.

    IP22085
    US and PRC naval vessels on manoeuvres off the coast of Sulawesi, Indonesia, in 2009. Given increasing tensions between both superpowers, a Code of Conduct managing interactions between navies in the South China Sea have become increasingly urgent. Image from Wikimedia.

    However, Indonesia has made its position clear. Indonesia is not keen on negotiating a symbolic or normative CoC that is ineffective in managing disputes between the claimant states. Instead, it wants to have a meaningful and substantive CoC that can be implemented in the disputed areas and is consistent with existing international law, especially the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS. The CoC, in Indonesia’s view, should also lay out clear measures to forestall and prevent any escalation among the law enforcement agencies of claimant states. As a mechanism for conflict management, the CoC should be able to reduce and minimise clashes between claimant states in the disputed waters.

    Geographical Scope of the CoC: A Key Stumbling Block

    Even though Indonesia has a strong commitment to realising the CoC, it is highly unlikely that the code will be concluded under Indonesia’s chairmanship. One of the key issues plaguing CoC negotiations concerns the geographical scope of the code, i.e., the inability to come to an agreement on a clearly delineated geographical zone where provisions of the code will be applicable for all signatories.

    Unfortunately, Indonesia and China have mutually negating positions regarding the geographical scope of the CoC. Even though Indonesia is not a claimant to any of the contested islands, its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the North Natuna Sea overlaps with China’s so-called Nine-Dash Line. Indonesia’s position on the geographical scope of the CoC is based on non-recognition of the Nine-Dash Line, a position reinforced by its recognition of the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal Award, which declared the Nine-Dash Line to be incompatible with UNCLOS and illegal under international law. As UNCLOS is the basis of Indonesia’s archipelagic status and of its EEZ, Indonesia cannot agree to a CoC referencing the Nine-Dash Line.

    On the other hand, China’s position is also clear. China’s notion of the geographical scope of the CoC includes the Nine-Dash Line, which constitutes the basis of China’s historical claim to the South China Sea. Therefore, it is unlikely that China will agree to a CoC that does not include the Nine-Dash Line as part of its geographical scope.

    One way to overcome these differences and achieve the CoC is for the code to stay silent on its geographical scope. Each of the signatories can then make unilateral statements declaring their intention to abide by the CoC provisions in their self-defined geographical zone. Unfortunately, disagreements over interpretation of the CoC mean that the agreement will not be an effective conflict prevention mechanism but could instead generate new tensions between the claimant states. Moreover, it is unlikely that ASEAN claimants will agree to leave out the CoC’s geographical scope because doing so is unlikely to help in managing their disputes.

    What Can We Expect Under the Indonesian Chairmanship?

    Progress on the CoC during Indonesia’s chairmanship is likely to be influenced by the amount of political capital that President Jokowi is willing to invest in the CoC and by domestic dynamics in Indonesia leading up to the 2024 elections. Although the CoC is unlikely to be concluded during Indonesia’s ASEAN chairmanship, Indonesia will still be able to push and steer the CoC forward. As ASEAN chair, Indonesia can put together a priority list for negotiation at regional CoC meetings. On the issue of the CoC’s geographical scope, a workable formula that satisfies China and the ASEAN countries would need to be devised.

    Currently, the CoC negotiation process is split into two parallel tracks. The first track constitutes ministers and senior officials, who tend to be sanguine about the CoC process. They are keen to conclude a CoC as a framework for dispute management and as a visible indicator of strong ASEAN-China ties. The second track involves legal advisers in the respective foreign ministries, who have thus far been unable to come to an agreement that will be substantive and palatable to all 11 countries. They are generally not optimistic about concluding the CoC because of conflicting interests.

    Given these points of contention, Indonesia’s past success as a consensus builder and bridge builder in ASEAN will be key to pushing forward the CoC negotiations in 2023. However, the road to a final diplomatic breakthrough for the successful conclusion of the CoC will be a long and difficult one.

     

    Aristyo Rizka DARMAWAN is a lecturer in international law at Universitas Indonesia and a Visiting Fellow with the Indonesia Studies Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).

    Categories: IDSS Papers / International Politics and Security / Maritime Security / Southeast Asia and ASEAN
    The South China Sea Code of Conduct has languished since a single draft text was put forward as the basis for negotiation in 2018. Several fundamental issues have impeded resolution of the disagreements surrounding the code. These call for Indonesia, as incoming chair of ASEAN, to take an active approach to push the code through, argues ARISTYO DARMAWAN.

     

    COMMENTARY

    The idea of a South China Sea Code of Conduct (CoC), first mooted to create an ASEAN-China regional agreement to manage the maritime disputes between claimant states, has languished since both sides agreed in 2018 on a single draft text as the basis for further negotiations. Since then, no ASEAN chair has been able to break the deadlock and move the needle on the CoC. Expectations are high that as the primus inter paresof the regional grouping, Indonesia will be able to inject new momentum into the CoC negotiations during its chairmanship of ASEAN in 2023. Unfortunately, even though Indonesia has historically played a successful meditating role in critical junctures of ASEAN’s history, the intractable issues surrounding the CoC make it unlikely that Indonesia will be able to successfully negotiate an agreement in the coming year.

    A Long History

    Negotiations for the South China Sea CoC have had a long history. A proposal to formulate a code was first mooted in 1996, some four years after ASEAN’s 1992 Declaration on the South China Sea. However, favourable political conditions leading to regional negotiations for a CoC emerged only in 2016 in response to growing concerns among ASEAN countries regarding China’s land reclamation activities in the South China Sea. These culminated in a series of consultations on the CoC and the emergence of a single draft negotiating text in 2018. Unfortunately, the CoC remains in cold storage after negotiations were halted in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The CoC is not a regional agreement to resolve territorial claims and disputes with regard to the South China Sea. Instead, it seeks to serve as a guideline for conduct to prevent military incidents and manage conflict in the disputed area. In addition, it is envisaged that the CoC will set out regional cooperation initiatives on resource management, marine scientific research, and environmental protection in the disputed area. Some ASEAN countries would also want to see provisions in the CoC for protecting their fishermen when fishing in disputed areas.

    Indonesia’s Position

     Under the leadership of Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi, Indonesia had viewed the CoC as an important instrument to maintain peace and security in the disputed area. In bilateral meetings between Retno Marsudi and her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, the two leaders often emphasised the need to speed up the negotiations for the CoC.

    IP22085
    US and PRC naval vessels on manoeuvres off the coast of Sulawesi, Indonesia, in 2009. Given increasing tensions between both superpowers, a Code of Conduct managing interactions between navies in the South China Sea have become increasingly urgent. Image from Wikimedia.

    However, Indonesia has made its position clear. Indonesia is not keen on negotiating a symbolic or normative CoC that is ineffective in managing disputes between the claimant states. Instead, it wants to have a meaningful and substantive CoC that can be implemented in the disputed areas and is consistent with existing international law, especially the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS. The CoC, in Indonesia’s view, should also lay out clear measures to forestall and prevent any escalation among the law enforcement agencies of claimant states. As a mechanism for conflict management, the CoC should be able to reduce and minimise clashes between claimant states in the disputed waters.

    Geographical Scope of the CoC: A Key Stumbling Block

    Even though Indonesia has a strong commitment to realising the CoC, it is highly unlikely that the code will be concluded under Indonesia’s chairmanship. One of the key issues plaguing CoC negotiations concerns the geographical scope of the code, i.e., the inability to come to an agreement on a clearly delineated geographical zone where provisions of the code will be applicable for all signatories.

    Unfortunately, Indonesia and China have mutually negating positions regarding the geographical scope of the CoC. Even though Indonesia is not a claimant to any of the contested islands, its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the North Natuna Sea overlaps with China’s so-called Nine-Dash Line. Indonesia’s position on the geographical scope of the CoC is based on non-recognition of the Nine-Dash Line, a position reinforced by its recognition of the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal Award, which declared the Nine-Dash Line to be incompatible with UNCLOS and illegal under international law. As UNCLOS is the basis of Indonesia’s archipelagic status and of its EEZ, Indonesia cannot agree to a CoC referencing the Nine-Dash Line.

    On the other hand, China’s position is also clear. China’s notion of the geographical scope of the CoC includes the Nine-Dash Line, which constitutes the basis of China’s historical claim to the South China Sea. Therefore, it is unlikely that China will agree to a CoC that does not include the Nine-Dash Line as part of its geographical scope.

    One way to overcome these differences and achieve the CoC is for the code to stay silent on its geographical scope. Each of the signatories can then make unilateral statements declaring their intention to abide by the CoC provisions in their self-defined geographical zone. Unfortunately, disagreements over interpretation of the CoC mean that the agreement will not be an effective conflict prevention mechanism but could instead generate new tensions between the claimant states. Moreover, it is unlikely that ASEAN claimants will agree to leave out the CoC’s geographical scope because doing so is unlikely to help in managing their disputes.

    What Can We Expect Under the Indonesian Chairmanship?

    Progress on the CoC during Indonesia’s chairmanship is likely to be influenced by the amount of political capital that President Jokowi is willing to invest in the CoC and by domestic dynamics in Indonesia leading up to the 2024 elections. Although the CoC is unlikely to be concluded during Indonesia’s ASEAN chairmanship, Indonesia will still be able to push and steer the CoC forward. As ASEAN chair, Indonesia can put together a priority list for negotiation at regional CoC meetings. On the issue of the CoC’s geographical scope, a workable formula that satisfies China and the ASEAN countries would need to be devised.

    Currently, the CoC negotiation process is split into two parallel tracks. The first track constitutes ministers and senior officials, who tend to be sanguine about the CoC process. They are keen to conclude a CoC as a framework for dispute management and as a visible indicator of strong ASEAN-China ties. The second track involves legal advisers in the respective foreign ministries, who have thus far been unable to come to an agreement that will be substantive and palatable to all 11 countries. They are generally not optimistic about concluding the CoC because of conflicting interests.

    Given these points of contention, Indonesia’s past success as a consensus builder and bridge builder in ASEAN will be key to pushing forward the CoC negotiations in 2023. However, the road to a final diplomatic breakthrough for the successful conclusion of the CoC will be a long and difficult one.

     

    Aristyo Rizka DARMAWAN is a lecturer in international law at Universitas Indonesia and a Visiting Fellow with the Indonesia Studies Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).

    Categories: IDSS Papers / International Politics and Security / Maritime Security

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info