In recent years, the South China Sea area has become the arena of competition between the countries of Southeast Asia that set up claims to maritime areas and the islands, and, all the more, want to control and exploit what can be found under the seabed, namely the deposits of oil and gas. The situation in the area cannot even be resolved by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 1982). Apart from the resources found in the sea and under the seabed, this body of water is an important shipping route, which makes it a strategically significant area for each of the countries located there, or those whose interests involve the South China Sea.
In this work, I describe the current situation in the waters of South China Sea: whether the countries bordering it strive for conflict or just secure their interests. It turns out each of the states will set up demands to the islands on this sea and especially to everything that lives in the sea and is to be found under the seabed. Minor, and also more significant incidents will happen, but it does not seem likely that any serious open conflict between the states of the region will break out in the close future. None of the countries pursues it and they do everything they can to maintain the status quo.

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.