Australia, China and the maritime 'rules-based international order': comparing the South China Sea and Timor Sea disputes

Beeson, M; Chubb, A

Australia, China and the maritime 'rules-based international order': comparing the South China Sea and Timor Sea disputes

Beeson, M

Chubb, A

Permalink

Publisher:: OXFORD UNIV PRESS
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC, 2021, 21, (2), pp. 233-264
Issue Date:: 2021-05-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

The embargo period expires on 1 May 2023

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted versionAdobe PDF (609.74 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Beeson, M https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8659-262X
dc.contributor.author	Chubb, A
dc.date.accessioned	2022-04-11T19:35:23Z
dc.date.available	2022-04-11T19:35:23Z
dc.date.issued	2021-05-01
dc.identifier.citation	INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC, 2021, 21, (2), pp. 233-264
dc.identifier.issn	1470-482X
dc.identifier.issn	1470-4838
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/156078
dc.description.abstract	<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>Despite systemic internal and external differences, Australia and China have shown striking similarities in their pursuit of disputed maritime resource and jurisdictional claims. This high-stakes area of international politics is governed by a codified, globally accepted international legal regime (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), making it an important case for examining the relationship between states’ foreign policies and the ‘rules-based international order’. In the South China Sea, Beijing is haunted by the legacy of its strong geopolitically driven support for an expansive law of the sea regime in the 1970s. Strategic considerations also drove Australia’s belated embrace of international legal processes in the Timor Sea in 2016. Before that, successive Australian governments had been as keen to pursue national maritime interests through bilateral negotiations as their Chinese counterparts. Australia’s shift was enabled by pro-Timor domestic public opinion and a confluence of geographic and commercial circumstances not present in the South China Sea.</jats:p>
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	OXFORD UNIV PRESS
dc.relation.ispartof	INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1093/irap/lcz022
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess
dc.subject	1606 Political Science
dc.subject.classification	International Relations
dc.title	Australia, China and the maritime 'rules-based international order': comparing the South China Sea and Timor Sea disputes
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	21
utslib.for	1606 Political Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (International)
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (International)/Australia-China Relations Institute
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
utslib.copyright.embargo	2023-05-01T00:00:00+1000Z
dc.date.updated	2022-04-11T19:35:21Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	21
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

Abstract Despite systemic internal and external differences, Australia and China have shown striking similarities in their pursuit of disputed maritime resource and jurisdictional claims. This high-stakes area of international politics is governed by a codified, globally accepted international legal regime (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), making it an important case for examining the relationship between states’ foreign policies and the ‘rules-based international order’. In the South China Sea, Beijing is haunted by the legacy of its strong geopolitically driven support for an expansive law of the sea regime in the 1970s. Strategic considerations also drove Australia’s belated embrace of international legal processes in the Timor Sea in 2016. Before that, successive Australian governments had been as keen to pursue national maritime interests through bilateral negotiations as their Chinese counterparts. Australia’s shift was enabled by pro-Timor domestic public opinion and a confluence of geographic and commercial circumstances not present in the South China Sea.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/156078