In a reality TV show, a realist, and a liberal discuss their view on the south china sea issue during one of the obligatory activities. Both scholars understand the impact anarchy has on international politics in the south china sea. Without an international government, there is no official authority that can moderate states actions at the international level. However, the impact of anarchy and the measures necessary to take for international cooperation are vastly different between the scholars. In the south china sea region, china claims authority over the territory, however, other states in southeast Asia claim ownership of either partial or the entire territory causing conflict between the states as to whom the territory belongs to. The
…show more content…
As tensions rose in the south china sea, a diplomatic solution through the ASEAN took place making the states cooperate financially and enforcing the states to resolve their issues peacefully. Even after conflict built again between the states, the ASEAN has been there to prevent the states from letting their personal goals impact international cooperation. Anarchy is a structure that states follow unconsciously, however it doesn’t suggest that states are all similar. In the mid-90s, china was caught secretly building structures on reefs, unaware from the Philippines navy. China, later on, had to sign an agreement of conduct with the Philippines to establish stability in the south china sea due to this incident. The ASEAN is able to work with states in conflict Cooperation between states is only possible under similar interest, in this case, the south china sea. Institutions need to be set up at an international level to promote peace and cooperation that not only impact the international policies, but also the state. however, the realist scholar does not see an institution to be useful against anarchy and promoting …show more content…
China has the longest historical claim of the south china sea and leading militarily and economic only makes their drive for relative gain easier. The diplomatic policy done in the early 90s by the ASEAN favored china’s need since the state 's status in the region corrupts the institution to do what it wants, which is why institutions are inadequate and puppets of the powerful. The ASEAN can try to make states cooperate, however, states will never trust each other intentions. After the Philippines unpleasant history with china made the state agree with “the united states to station military forces there and train Filipino troops”. China’s power hunger has made the south china sea issues into a security dilemma, making states, not only the Philippines, feel threaten by its power resulting in the state building its own military stronger in fear of becoming victims of china’s hunger for the south china sea. even if the states cooperate in some way, they never know the other states intention in the future. the only way to stop china from obtaining full control of the territory is by acting on offensive realism, states becoming a hegemony like china is the only way they can compete against the power hungry.
As both scholars state their view, it is clear that their solution for the south china sea conflict has to do with anarchy and the way
As tensions rose in the south china sea, a diplomatic solution through the ASEAN took place making the states cooperate financially and enforcing the states to resolve their issues peacefully. Even after conflict built again between the states, the ASEAN has been there to prevent the states from letting their personal goals impact international cooperation. Anarchy is a structure that states follow unconsciously, however it doesn’t suggest that states are all similar. In the mid-90s, china was caught secretly building structures on reefs, unaware from the Philippines navy. China, later on, had to sign an agreement of conduct with the Philippines to establish stability in the south china sea due to this incident. The ASEAN is able to work with states in conflict Cooperation between states is only possible under similar interest, in this case, the south china sea. Institutions need to be set up at an international level to promote peace and cooperation that not only impact the international policies, but also the state. however, the realist scholar does not see an institution to be useful against anarchy and promoting …show more content…
China has the longest historical claim of the south china sea and leading militarily and economic only makes their drive for relative gain easier. The diplomatic policy done in the early 90s by the ASEAN favored china’s need since the state 's status in the region corrupts the institution to do what it wants, which is why institutions are inadequate and puppets of the powerful. The ASEAN can try to make states cooperate, however, states will never trust each other intentions. After the Philippines unpleasant history with china made the state agree with “the united states to station military forces there and train Filipino troops”. China’s power hunger has made the south china sea issues into a security dilemma, making states, not only the Philippines, feel threaten by its power resulting in the state building its own military stronger in fear of becoming victims of china’s hunger for the south china sea. even if the states cooperate in some way, they never know the other states intention in the future. the only way to stop china from obtaining full control of the territory is by acting on offensive realism, states becoming a hegemony like china is the only way they can compete against the power hungry.
As both scholars state their view, it is clear that their solution for the south china sea conflict has to do with anarchy and the way