How has the US-China rivalry manifested in different legal regimes, such as the law of the sea, trade, and international institutions?

Main Article Content

Jianhao (Leo) Li

Abstract

The US-China rivalry has altered the international legal regimes into hostility of strategic competition in 3 legal regimes. This paper will analyze how political and economic tensions manifest in the realms of international law that take advantage of ambiguities in the frameworks, particularly in associations such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This paper discusses the comparison of past rivalries, particularly the US-Japan naval rivalries before WWII, as arguments are made regarding interpretations of China's EEZ sovereignty claims of UNCLOS against the US interests of high seas freedoms, and US claims of security exceptions under GATT Article XXI against China's retaliations to tariffs. The observational data indicates an increase of Freedom of Navigation Operations from 1-2 to 8-10 in 20 years, an investment decline from a peak of $13.8 billion to $8.7 billion in 4 years, and UNSC alignment drop from 90% to 60% and underscores a decline in bilateral values with the educational exchange dropping from 370,000 to under 300,000 in 5 years. This research finds the interconnectedness of the issues of spillover with economic losses and regular instances of GATT/FONOP issues. There are recommendations worth consideration to restore stability, including reviving the presidential US-China hotline, formally establishing a multilateral council specifically focused on UNCLOS/WTO reforms to resourceful responses to the challenges of transnational competition, and a Global Tech Exchange Initiative dedicated to stable bilateral relationship growth.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Li, J. (Leo). (2026). How has the US-China rivalry manifested in different legal regimes, such as the law of the sea, trade, and international institutions?. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 81(1), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v81i1.13567
Section
Miscellaneous

References

[1] Barkin, Noah. EXPORT CONTROLS and the US-CHINA TECH WAR Policy Challenges for Europe. 2020.

[2] Ciuriak, Dan. “The US-China Trade War: Technological Roots and WTO Responses.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3330392.

[3] Colin, Sébastien. “China, the US, and the Law of the Sea.” China Perspectives, vol. 2016, no. 2, 1 June 2016, pp. 57–62, journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/6994.

[4] Crowley, Meredith. Trade War the Clash of Economic Systems Endangering Global Prosperity Edited by Meredith A. Crowley a VoxEU.org Book. 2019.

[5] Dutton, Peter, et al. “Mischief Reef: President Trump’s First FONOP?” Csis.org, 2016, www.csis.org/analysis/mischief-reef-president-trumps-first-fonop.

[6] Hu BO. “Feature-Challenge Freedom of Navigation Operations and the Major Agendas of US Policy toward China.” 南海战略态势感知计划, 23 June 2023, www.scspi.org/en/dtfx/feature-challenge-freedom-navigation-operations-and-major-agendas-us-policy-toward-china.

[7] Jones, Bob. “Freedom of Navigation in an Era of Great-Power Competition.” National Review, 8 Mar. 2019, www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/freedom-of-navigation-chinese-naval-expansion/.

[8] Kim, Min-hyung. “A Real Driver of US–China Trade Conflict.” International Trade, Politics and Development, vol. 3, no. 1, 4 Feb. 2019, pp. 30–40, https://doi.org/10.1108/itpd-02-2019-003.

[9] Lyon, Rod. “Misoverestimating Freedom-of-Navigation Operations | the Strategist.” The Strategist, 31 Oct. 2016, www.aspistrategist.org.au/misoverestimating-freedom-navigation-operations/.

[10] Min Cho. “The US Freedom of Navigation Operations in the South China Sea and the Strategic Importance of the Maritime Features.” Snu.ac.kr, 2020, s-space.snu.ac.kr/handle/10371/169517, https://doi.org/000000163408.

[11] Nau, Aljoscha. COVID-19 Pandemic, Trade Wars and Deadlock at the WTO: Rules-Based Trade Is under Pressure and the EU Must Take the Lead. 28 Apr. 2020.

[12] Office of the Historian. “The Washington Naval Conference, 1921–1922.” State.gov, 2019, history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/naval-conference.

[13] Orford, Anne. “How to Think about the Battle for the State at the WTO.” German Law Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, Feb. 2023, pp. 45–71, https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.3.

[14] United Nations. “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” United Nations, 1982.

[15] World Trade Organization. “General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947 ).” Www.wto.org, 1947, www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_e.htm.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.