Published online: 10 June 2021
Final submission: 1 August 2020
Printed issue: December 2021
Author: Eric Pomès
E-mail: epomes@ices.fr
Institution: Vendée Catholic University (ICES) (France)
Author: Jean-Marc Coicaud
E-mail: jeanmarc.coicaud@rutgers.edu
Institution: Rutgers University, State University of New Jersey (USA)
Source: Show
Pages: 1-18
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppsy202104
PDF: ppsy/50/ppsy202104.pdf

The China Sea connects as many coastal states as it divides due to the economic and strategic challenges it represents. It also embodies an area of confrontations between the Great American and Chinese strategies. Identifying with precision the differences that arise requires an interest in the symbolic dimensions that surround them. This angle of analysis provides an opportunity to observe the functioning of international law and inevitably leads to a discussion of the emerging international order. The literature on the situation in the China Sea abounds. The paper’s singularity is to approach it under the prism of international law as revealing the psychology of an actor. To carry out this research, the authors use a pragmatic and critical approach to international law. The thesis defended shows that, contrary to a positivist and judicial approach to international law, elements exogenous to the law, the history, and the psychology of an actor, influence the interpretation of existing norms.

REFERENCES:

  • Allee, T.L., & Huth, P.K. (2006). Legitimizing dispute settlement: International legal rulings as domestic political cover. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 219‑
  • Allott, P. (1999). The concept of international law. European Journal of International Law, 10(1), 31‑
  • Anghie, A. (2014). Towards a Postcolonial International Law. In P. Singh & B. Mayer (Eds.), Critical international law: Postrealism, postcolonialism and transnationalism (pp. 123-142). Oxford University Press.
  • Arbatova, N.K., & Dynkin, A.A. (2016). World Order after Ukraine. Survival, 58(1), 71‑
  • Bianchi, A. (2017). International law theories. Oxford University Press.
  • Blum, Y.Z. (1965). Historic titles in international law. Martinus Nijhoff.
  • Boon, K.E. (2014). International Arbitration in Highly Political Situations: The South China Sea Dispute and International Law. Washington University global studies law review, 13(3), 487‑
  • Boyle, M.J. (2016). The Coming Illiberal Order. Survival, 58(2), 35‑
  • Buchan, R. (2013). International law and the construction of the liberal peace. Hart Publishing.
  • Buszynski, L. (2017). Law and Realpolitik: The Arbitral Tribunal’s Ruling and the South China Sea. Asian yearbook of international law, 21, 121‑
  • Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), I.C.J. Reports 1962 6 (1962).
  • Chang, Y.-C. (2016). China’s Non-Participation Approach toward the South China Sea Arbitration,. Chinese Taiwan yearbook of international law and affairs, 34, 56‑
  • Chen, Z. (2016). China’s Diplomacy. In C.M. Constantinou, P. Kerr, & P. Sharp (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy (pp. 348‑360). SAGE.
  • Chen, Z. (2018). Le retour de la Chine sur le devant de la scčne: Vers un nouveau leadership facilitateur ? Revue défense nationale, 811, 39‑
  • Chimni, B.S. (2006). Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto. International Community Law Review, 8(1), 3‑
  • Coicaud, J.-M. (2016). Emotions and Passions of Death and the Making of World War II: the Cases of Germany and Japan. In Y. Ariffin, J.-M. Coicaud, & V. Popovski (Eds.), Emotions in international politics: Beyond mainstream international relations (pp. 277‑298). Cambridge University Press.
  • Colin, S. (2016). La Chine, les États-Unis et le droit de la mer. Perspectives chinoises, 59‑
  • de Lacharrčre, G. (1983). La politique juridique extérieure. Économica.
  • deLisle, Jacques. (2012). Troubled Waters: China’s Claims and the South China Sea. ORBIS Orbis, 56(4), 608‑
  • deLisle, Jacques. (2017). China’s Territorial and Maritime Disputes in the South and East China Seas: In Jacques deLisle & A. GOLDSTEIN (Eds.), Cooperation, Competition, and Influence in the 21st Century (pp. 235‑290). Brookings Institution Press.
  • Dupuy, F., & Dupuy, P.-M. (2013). A legal analysis of China’s historic rights claim in the South China Sea. American journal of international law, 107(1), 124‑
  • Dutton, P.A. (2016). An Analysis of China’s Claim to Historic Rights in the South China Sea. In Y. Song & K. Zou (Eds.), Major law and policy issues in the South China Sea: European and American perspectives (pp. 57‑73). Routledge.
  • Dworkin, R. (2013). Taking Rights Seriously. Bloomsbury Academic.
  • Fels, E., & Vu, T.-M. (Eds.). (2016). Power Politics in Asias Contested Waters Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea.
  • Focsaneanu, L. (1956). Les « cinq principes » de coexistence et le droit international. Annuaire français de droit international, 150‑
  • Fu, K. (2019a). Misattribution of china’s historic rights to the south china sea by the 2016 south china sea arbitration (part I). China Oceans Law Review, 3, 14‑
  • Fu, K. (2019b). Misattribution of china’s historic rights to the south china sea by the 2016 south china sea arbitration (part II). China Oceans Law Review, 4, 29‑
  • Glennon, M.J. (2010). The Fog of Law. Stanford University Press.
  • Haiwen, B. (2010). South “China” Sea. Outre-Terre, 2526(2‑3), 321‑
  • Hall, T.H. (2015). Emotional Diplomacy Official Emotion on the International Stage. Cornell University Press.
  • Hayton, B. (2017). When good lawyers write bad history: Unreliable evidence and the South China Sea territorial dispute. Ocean development and international law, 48(1), 17‑
  • Heritage, A., & Lee, P.K. (2020). Order, contestation and ontological security-seeking in the South China Sea. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • In the matter of the south china sea arbitration, PCA Case n° 2013-19 (PCA 12 juillet 2016).
  • Kennedy, David. (2009). Nouvelles approches de droit international, Paris, Pedone. Pedone.
  • Kennedy, Duncan. (1998). A critique of adjudication: Fin de sičcle. Harvard University Press.
  • Kittrie, O.F. (2016). Lawfare: Law as a weapon of war. Oxford University Press.
  • Kohen, M.G. (1997). Possession contestée et souveraineté territoriale. Graduate Institute Publications.
  • Kolb, R. (2015). Réflexions sur les politiques juridiques extérieures. Pedone.
  • Koskenniemi, M. (2004). International law and hegemony: A reconfiguration. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17(2), 197‑
  • Koskenniemi, M. (2007). La politique du droit international. Pedone.
  • Ku, J. (2016). The Significance of China’s Rejection of the South China Sea Arbitration for Its Approach to International Dispute Settlement and International Law. Chinese Taiwan yearbook of international law and affairs, 34, 73‑
  • Langer, L. (2018). The South China Sea as a Challenge to International Law and to International Legal Scholarship. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 36(3), 383‑
  • Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 136 (ICJ 2004).
  • Linderfalk, U. (2011). The application of international legal norms over time: The second branch of intertemporal law. Netherlands International Law Review, 58(2), 147‑
  • Loja, M.H. (2018). A Critical Legal Approach to the South China Sea Territorial Dispute. Journal of the history of international law, 20(2), 198‑
  • Lowenheim, O., & Heimann, G. (2008). Revenge in International Politics. Security Studies, 17(4), 685‑
  • Ma, X. (2018). Merits Award Relating to Historic Rights in the South China Sea Arbitration: An Appraisal. 8(1), 12‑
  • Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), I.C.J. Reports 1986 14 (ICJ 1986).
  • Nguyen, T.H. (2018). Les conflits frontaliers sino-vietnamiens De 1885 ŕ nos jours. Demopolis.
  • Onuma, Y. (2017). International law in a transcivilizational world. Cambridge University Press.
  • Pahuja, S. (2011). Decolonising International Law. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139048200
  • (2011). Chinese Philosophy and International Law. The Asian journal of international law, 1(2), 233‑248.
  • Pancracio, J.-P. (2017). La sentence arbitrale sur la mer de Chine méridionale du 12 juillet 2016. Annuaire Français de Relations Internationales, XVIII, 639‑
  • Popovski, V. (2016). Emotions and International Law. In Y. Ariffin, J.-M. Coicaud, & V. Popovski (Eds.), Emotions in international politics: Beyond mainstream international relations (pp. 184‑203). Cambridge University Press.
  • Schieder, S. (2000). Pragmatism as a path towards a discursive and open theory of international law. European Journal of International Law, 11(3), 663‑
  • Shen, J. (2002). China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands: A historical perspective. Chinese Journal of International Law, 1(1), 94‑
  • Sisci, F. (2008). Sous un męme ciel: La vision chinoise d’un nouveau monde. Diogčne, 221(1), 100‑
  • Tingyang, Z. (2008). La philosophie du tianxia. Diogčne, 221(1), 4‑
  • Wang, Y. (2014). China: A Staunch Defender and Builder of the International Rule of Law. Chinese Journal of International Law, 13, 635‑
  • Wells, C.P. (2000). Why pragmatism works for me. Southern California Law Review, 74, 347‑
  • Zerelli, L. (2001). Cet universalisme qui n’est pas un. Ŕ propos d’Emancipation(s) d’Ernesto Laclau. Revuedu MAUSS, 17(1), 332‑
  • Zhao, T. (2019). Redefining A Philosophy for World Governance. Springer.

Wiadomość do:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart