A Response Paper to Two Readings
Introduction
The book ‘China’s Global Engagement’ by Delisle focuses on China as regards the South and East China Seas. ‘China and the South China Sea Lawfare’ by Hsiao equally focuses on China as concerns the South and East China Seas. Both authors focus attention on the application of international law and its impact on the highlighted issue. Delisle focuses on the subject by looking at the shortcomings of international law. The author, in this regard, seeks to bring forth the issues at stake due to the disputes. Whereas Hsiao focuses on international law as well, the author looks at the law from a misuse perspective angle. The author focuses on ‘lawfare’ as relates to the China issue at hand. Both authors focus on the South and East China Seas matter as it relates to the relationship between China and other countries. Even though the approach as concerns the issue differs, the authors agree on the critical issues concerning the South and East China Seas and the role China plays. The purpose of the paper is to compare the two articles.
Delisle’s Argument
The main issue the author addresses is the failure and ineffectiveness of international law as regards conflict of South and East China seas. The author argues that international law, despite its inefficiency, has also contributed to the problem. Political will is essential in overcoming the challenges involved. However, political will is not forthcoming. The issue revolves around geographical, political, and economic aspects. The South China Sea is an essential aspect of the dispute. The sea has a rich fishing ground, which contributes positively to the economy of the people involved. The East China Sea on the other hand has fisheries of importance to Japan, Korea and China (Delisle, 2017, p236). Fishing activities done contribute to the economy of the countries involved as well as the economic status of the people who fish. Japan, Fishing thus significantly contributes to the livelihoods of a large number of people. It is in this regard that China seeks to fight for territory in the sea.
Both seas serve as trading routes for several countries trading in Asian and European markets. The relevance as concerns international trade means that the economic and political aspects come into play. It is in this regard that the U.S. plays a significant role in the conflict as regards access or restriction to both the South and East China seas. The author also highlights the mineral resources as well as oil and gas resources available, which further aggravates the situation. Failed agreement between Japan and China as regards access to these resources is yet another aspect that highlights the failure of international law. China, due to its stable political and economic status (Delisle, 2017, p241), has over the years flaunted the international laws set forth as concern the South and East China seas. The country has sought to dominate the maritime area sparking conflict with other claimant countries and the U.S.
These problems highlighted by the author are essential since they give a clearer insight into the issue. It is necessary to understand the history of a problem to understand it adequately. The author not only highlights the issue but the background of the subject as well. In this regard, the author assumes that China disregards international law and takes advantage of its political and economic power to disenfranchise weaker countries. The main focus of the author is the fact that having rights does not equate to the use of rights (Delisle, 2017, p272). Despite the existence of international law, China does not exercise those rights. The conflict between China and the U.S., for example, is based on the power held by both countries. The article by the author is strong since it lays out the issues at stake simply and understandably. The issue at hand is articulated as well as the background of the problem.
Hsiao Argument
The author focuses on ‘lawfare’ whereby law is misused or used appropriately (Hsiao, 2016, p3). In this regard, the law is used to achieve particular goals. The author addresses the involvement of the U.S. in the conflict as well as the Philippine arbitration issue. Laws can either be used to resolve issues or can equally be the source of conflict. The South and East China seas have been the subject of dispute among countries seeking maritime territorial rights. The international law definition for China has a different meaning as opposed to that of the West (Hsiao, 2016, p21). In this regard, international law application differs. The author’s argument is crucial as it gives insight into the Chinas’ background as regards its view of international law. The central focus of the author is the relationship between the U.S. and China as regards international law. The focus on the U.S., China, and the Philippines is a strong argument.
Comparison of the Articles
Both arguments focus on the background and history of China as concerns international law. The two authors also highlight the involvement of the U.S. The economic and political importance of the South and East China seas is also highlighted. Both authors agree that China disregards the application of international law. The disregard is thus the basis for the conflict between China and other countries as it seeks territorial dominance.
Hsiao’s article predominantly focuses on the U.S and the Philippines, whereas Delisle’s article is more diverse. The authors focus on different aspects of the issue. Even though the approach is different as regards diversity, the underlying issue is similar. The problem discussed is the same as it involves the South and East China Seas and the dominance of China in territorial conflict. However, whereas Hsiao’s, for example, focuses on the Philippines, Delisle’s article focuses on Japan. As regards article strength Delisle’s article is stronger as it is more engaging as compared to Hsiao’s article. I agree with the arguments of both authors as regards the issue at hand. Both pieces not only focus on China’s territorial conflict but equally seek to make the reader understand the background of the issue. It is essential to understand the underlying cause of a problem, and in this regard, both authors focus on the underlying issue. However, Delisle’s article is more engaging and clear, hence the article I would recommend.
Conclusion
Both articles are informative, and as such, the reader can grasp and understand the issue discussed. The Delisle article is engaging from the onset. The aspect makes it easy for the reader to grasp the argument made by the author easily. The Hsiao article though informative, is not as catchy as the other article. The layout of the article is also different. The Hsiao article is not easy to read in comparison to the other article, which has a clearer hence more legible layout. The headings are also different even though they focus on a similar issue. The Hsiao heading ‘China and the South China Sea Lawfare’ comes across as more complex due to the use of the word ‘lawfare.’ A reader would have to understand the meaning of the word to understand the context of the article. The title ‘China’s Disputes in the South and East China Seas,’ on the other hand, is easy to understand. It is straight forward, and the reader, therefore, easily understands the context of the article.
Due to the reasons given, I would give the Delisle article a higher star rating on a scale of one to five. I would equally recommend the article for these reasons as opposed to the Hsiao article. Both pieces are, however, recommendable for students or individuals interested in South and East seas issues.
References
Delisle, J. (2017). China’s Global Engagement. Brookings Institution Press.
Hsiao, A. (2016). China and the South China Sea “Lawfare”. Issues & Studies, 52(02), 1650008.
https://doi.org/10.1142/s1013251116500089