Role of the UN Security Council
As tensions rose in 2016, the UN Security Council had several interests in the East China Sea. China and Japan are both major powers and a conflict between the two could involve several more major powers. The United States has been a treaty ally of Japan since 1960. Likewise, several other members of the UN Security Council are treaty allies with the United States most prominently France and the United Kingdom. Although the United States has remained neutral on the dispute, it has also stated that its commitment to Japan’s defense includes any threat to the islands. Consequently, rising tensions risked becoming an international confrontation, threatening global economic growth, and the immediate safety of those in the region. The dispute in the East China Sea therefore posed a clear threat to international peace and security worthy of the UN Security Council’s consideration.
The UN Security Council had a number of options available to help resolve the East China Sea dispute. Most of these would be difficult to enforce, difficult to approve, or both. Negotiations have frequently had weak enforcement systems. International rulings have often gone ignored. Stronger measures such as imposing sanctions or deploying peacekeepers were likely impossible for the council to approve given China’s Security Council veto. Given the high potential for a stalemate in the Security Council over this issue, members would have to carefully consider how the council could be most effective.
Policy Options
The UN Security Council could consider the following options:
Call for negotiations to reduce tensions
The UN Security Council could direct China and Japan to negotiate in an attempt to resolve the situation peacefully, perhaps using a mediator. The United Nations could use its leverage to persuade Beijing and Tokyo to reduce their military forces in the region. The United Nations could encourage greater communication between the two countries’ militaries to avoid unintended incidents.
This option would be the least ambitious, yet it would be the most likely to gain the approval of member states. Calling for negotiations would offer a way to respond quickly to the situation at hand. However, this option could not guarantee that China and Japan would respond to such a call. Security Council members would need to consider how they could ensure that these negotiations succeeded where past talks had failed. If negotiations were successful, the UN Security Council would also need to consider what monitoring and enforcement measures it could adopt.
Refer the dispute for international arbitration
If China and Japan could not come to a peaceful agreement alone, the United Nations could adopt a resolution referring the matter to a third party for settlement. such as the United Nations’ International Court of Justice, or an independent body such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This option could prove more contentious among Security Council members than a call for negotiations. Security Council members would need to consider how, if at all, they could persuade China not to veto this option.
International arbitration could provide a legitimate forum for the dispute to be settled. However, if the Security Council decided to refer the dispute to any international body for arbitration, members need to be aware of the lack of enforcement mechanisms for any decision; China has rejected previous rulings against it in territorial disputes and could do so in this case as well. Furthermore, cases can take years to resolve, and the lack of immediate action could allow the dispute to escalate. This option would avoid certain risks that other options pose but could also signal a weak UN commitment to stability in the region.
Authorize military action to prevent escalation
The United Nations could adopt a resolution authorizing military action by the United States or other outside powers to prevent escalation of the dispute between China and Japan. This action could entail military forces from a third country conducting military patrols in the East China Sea to keep Japanese and Chinese forces separate. This could possibly prevent further incidents, and prevent escalation. However, involving military personnel in the dispute carries significant risks. The increase of military presence in the region could raise the chances of an accident or miscalculation; any military response would need to be effectively communicated to both Chinese and Japanese military forces in the area to minimize the risk of an unintended incident.
This option would be extremely difficult to implement, as China would likely veto any measures that could harm its national interests. Military actions involving outside powers, especially the United States, would likely not gain Chinese approval. Security Council members would need to consider what, if anything, they could do to persuade China to willingly allow outside military forces into waters it claims as part of its territory.
No action
The Security Council could decide it is unable to take meaningful action in the East China Sea in light of conflicting interests among council members. In this case, Security Council members could issue a presidential statement expressing concern about the situation but ultimately leave action up to individual countries. If the situation worsened, however, this decision could give rise to criticisms of the Security Council for failing to take action on a growing threat to international peace and security.