A Guide to South China Sea Disputes Escalation for MUN Delegates

Do not index

The possibility of the South China Sea disputes escalating is, without a doubt, one of the most dangerous geopolitical flashpoints in the world today. It’s a tangled mess of overlapping territorial claims, massive economic interests, and a steady build-up of military friction. This makes it a recurring crisis in high-stakes diplomacy and a must-know topic for any serious Model UN delegate.

Why the South China Sea Is a Global Flashpoint

Picture a major global intersection. Now imagine over one-third of all global shipping, worth more than $3 trillion every single year, sailing right through it. That's the South China Sea.

This waterway isn’t just a critical artery for international trade. It's also sitting on an estimated 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These immense economic stakes alone are enough to make it a powder keg.

Throw in competing sovereignty claims from half a dozen nations and the strategic interests of global superpowers, and it becomes painfully clear why the region is constantly on edge. For a Model UN delegate, getting a handle on this context is the first step toward shaping the debate and writing resolutions that actually matter. A firm grasp of these issues will give you a decisive edge, whether you're in the Security Council or the Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC).

The Core Drivers of Conflict

The disputes aren’t about just one thing. They’re fueled by a collision of three powerful forces: trade, resources, and superpower competition. This concept map breaks down how these drivers feed into each other.

As you can see, the struggle for control over vital sea lanes, the race to secure energy reserves, and the strategic chess match between major powers create a constant state of tension. Each piece of the puzzle makes the others more volatile, creating a vicious cycle of competition and mistrust.

A Complex Web of Motivations

Every country involved has its own unique mix of motivations, from economic dependency on the sea lanes to the powerful pull of domestic nationalism. This creates an incredibly volatile environment where a small incident—a fishing boat collision or a coast guard standoff—could quickly spiral into a major international crisis.

The constant military presence of both regional and outside powers adds yet another layer of risk. The whole area has become a classic example of a security dilemma, where one nation's defensive move is seen as an offensive threat by its neighbors. You can get a deeper understanding of this dynamic by reading our guide on what is the security dilemma.

Ultimately, any escalation in the South China Sea would send shockwaves far beyond the region. It threatens not only regional stability but the entire global economy and the very principles of international law. For MUN delegates, this isn't just another topic—it's a masterclass in modern geopolitics.

Tracing the Roots of Modern Tensions

To really get a handle on today's headlines about the South China Sea, you have to rewind the clock to the end of World War II. When the old colonial empires crumbled, they left a massive power vacuum in Southeast Asia. Almost immediately, newly independent nations started laying claim to the scattered islands, reefs, and shoals sprinkled across this vital waterway.

This is where the competing stories begin. China’s claim, for instance, is famously represented by the "nine-dash line," a U-shaped boundary that first showed up on a Chinese map way back in 1947. This line carves out a huge swath of the sea—claiming about 90% of it—based on what Beijing says are its historical rights of discovery and control.

But that narrative clashes head-on with what other countries in the region say. Nations like Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia have their own centuries-old evidence of using and administering these same features. This conflict—China's sweeping historical claim versus its neighbors' claims based on geography and international law—is the core of the entire dispute. It's also a major friction point in the broader bipolar competition between the U.S. and China.

From Maps to Gunfire

What started as a war of maps and strongly-worded diplomatic letters eventually turned violent. As countries tried to physically occupy the tiny bits of land they claimed, abstract disputes turned into deadly real-world encounters.

These early fights weren't just isolated skirmishes. They were foundational moments that hardened national positions and sowed a deep-seated mistrust that’s still very much alive today. Every clash added another layer of historical grievance, making any kind of compromise that much harder to achieve.

Two specific battles really stand out as the moments when diplomatic tension first boiled over into open warfare.

The 1974 Battle of the Paracel Islands

One of the first major armed conflicts exploded in January 1974. The Battle of the Paracel Islands pitted Chinese forces against the navy of South Vietnam, which controlled the islands at the time. The fight was quick and decisive.

China’s victory gave it full control of the Paracels, a situation that hasn't changed since. For Vietnam, the battle is a deep historical wound and a prime example of Chinese aggression. For China, it was a successful military operation to assert its sovereignty.

This event set a dangerous precedent. It showed that control could be won or lost at the end of a gun, a lesson that would be tragically repeated more than a decade later in the Spratly Islands.

The Deadly 1988 Johnson Reef Skirmish

The 1988 Johnson Reef skirmish is one of the bloodiest chapters in this story, highlighting China's growing willingness to be assertive. On March 14, 1988, Chinese naval ships attacked Vietnamese troops at Johnson Reef in the Spratlys. Within just a few hours, three Vietnamese vessels were sunk and over 70 sailors were killed.

This brutal clash came right after China established a presence on Fiery Cross Reef in 1987, signaling its ambition to dominate the Spratlys as interest in potential oil and gas reserves intensified. You can see how these events fit into a larger pattern by looking at the full timeline of China's maritime disputes.

These historical fights aren't just footnotes; they are the bedrock of today's nationalistic feelings and government policies. For MUN delegates, bringing up these events is a powerful way to explain a country's deep-seated motivations, justify its current military posture, and make a compelling case for why finding a way to de-escalate is so incredibly urgent.

China's Island Building and Militarization Campaign

If historical skirmishes lit the fuse on the South China Sea disputes, China’s massive island-building campaign was the explosion that followed. This wasn't just another chess move; it was an effort to redraw the entire strategic map of the region. Starting around 2013, China kicked off an unprecedented dredging and construction project that caught the world off guard.

Think about it: take a submerged reef, one that barely breaks the surface at high tide, and start piling sand and concrete on top of it. Keep going until you have a permanent, artificial island. Now, imagine doing that on an industrial scale across multiple locations at once. In just a few years, tiny reefs were transformed into military-grade installations.

This campaign fundamentally altered the physical and military reality on the water. It was a direct, powerful challenge to the status quo, creating "facts on the ground"—or rather, facts in the sea—that diplomacy alone can't easily reverse.

From Reefs to Fortresses

The speed and scale of this transformation were breathtaking. Between 2014 and 2016, China’s island-building frenzy sent regional tensions soaring. By 2023, it had reclaimed an estimated 5 square miles (or 3,200 acres) of new land across seven features in the Spratly Islands. Places like Mischief Reef, which it had seized from the Philippines back in 1994, were now sprawling military fortresses.

This effort, which the Pentagon called the largest of its kind in history, allows Beijing to project power across nearly 90% of the sea. It's a staggering assertion of control. You can dig into the long history of these territorial disputes on Wikipedia.

But these new islands are far more than symbolic flag-planting exercises. They are fully functional military outposts, equipped with strategic assets designed to give China dominant control over the surrounding sea and sky.

These installations now feature:

Deep-water ports large enough to accommodate major naval warships and coast guard vessels.

Military-grade runways, some stretching 3,000 meters, ready for fighter jets, bombers, and heavy transport planes.

Advanced radar and signals intelligence arrays that act as China’s eyes and ears, monitoring ship and air traffic for hundreds of miles.

Hardened hangars and reinforced bunkers built to protect aircraft and other military hardware from attack.

Anti-ship cruise missiles and surface-to-air missile systems, placing vital international shipping lanes well within striking distance.

What China has effectively built is a network of "unsinkable aircraft carriers." These bases allow its military to sustain a constant forward presence far from its mainland shores, dramatically extending its operational reach and challenging the freedom of navigation that other navies have long taken for granted.

A Strategic Game-Changer

This militarization campaign did more than just bolster China’s territorial claims. It created a powerful anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) bubble, making it much more dangerous for other countries—including the United States—to operate their military forces in the region, especially during a crisis.

This move completely changed the rules of the game. It put neighboring countries like the Philippines and Vietnam in an incredibly tough spot, forcing them to contend with a permanent and powerful military presence right on their doorsteps. Unsurprisingly, this has pushed some nations to bolster their own defenses and deepen security partnerships. For a closer look at these shifting dynamics, check out our guide on Indo-Pacific security alliances.

For any MUN delegate, understanding the strategic impact of these islands is absolutely critical. They represent a direct challenge to international law—specifically UNCLOS, which clearly states that artificial islands don't generate their own territorial seas or exclusive economic zones. By building and militarizing these features, China has created a dangerous new reality that defines the high-stakes tension in the South China Sea today.

Inside the Second Thomas Shoal Standoff

If you want to understand just how quickly things could spiral out of control in the South China Sea, you need to look at one tiny, submerged reef: Second Thomas Shoal. This spot has become the region’s most dangerous flashpoint. It's a real-world masterclass in modern “grey-zone” warfare, where nations clash just below the threshold of open war.

The whole drama centers on a ghost from the past. Back in 1999, the Philippine Navy did something desperate but brilliant—they intentionally ran a beat-up, World War II-era landing ship, the BRP Sierra Madre, aground on the shoal. The idea was to create a permanent, if decaying, military outpost to solidify Manila’s claim.

For more than two decades, this crumbling hulk has been home to a small detachment of Philippine marines. Their very presence is an act of defiance against China's sweeping claims, but it’s a precarious existence. They depend completely on regular resupply missions for food, water, and basic gear, which turns every single delivery into a high-stakes showdown.

The Anatomy of Harassment

China’s objective is clear: force the Philippines to abandon the shoal without ever firing a shot. To achieve this, it uses its massive Coast Guard and a shadowy maritime militia to systematically harass and block every single resupply run. These are not random encounters; they're a calculated campaign of aggression.

The recent clashes from 2023 to 2024 show just how perilous things have become. This shift kicked off under Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who ditched his predecessor’s softer stance on China to double down on alliances with the United States. In response, Chinese vessels have ramped up their intimidation tactics. They've fired military-grade lasers to blind crews, blasted Philippine boats with water cannons reaching 212 psi (powerful enough to injure sailors), and even rammed them. A collision on June 17, 2024, injured the crew, marking a clear escalation. For a blow-by-blow account of these incidents, the Global Conflict Tracker from CFR.org is an excellent resource.

The tactics are designed to intimidate and damage, all while staying just shy of an act of war that could trigger a mutual defense treaty.

Dangerous Maneuvers: Chinese ships will aggressively cut off Philippine boats at close range, creating a constant risk of collision.

Water Cannons: These high-pressure cannons aren't just for show. They can shatter windows, destroy equipment, and physically shove smaller resupply boats off course.

Acoustic Devices: Long-Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) are sometimes deployed to disorient and incapacitate crew members with debilitating sound waves.

Swarming Tactics: The Chinese maritime militia—a fleet of what look like ordinary fishing trawlers—will often swarm the area, forming a physical blockade that's nearly impossible to get through.

This relentless pressure campaign puts the Philippines in an impossible spot. Every mission becomes a test of national will, with the lives of its marines quite literally on the line.

A New Strategic Pivot

The constant harassment at Second Thomas Shoal has forced the Philippines to make a major strategic change. Under President Marcos Jr., Manila has stopped trying to appease Beijing and has instead leaned heavily into its alliance with the United States. This includes giving the U.S. expanded access to military bases and conducting joint naval patrols in the South China Sea.

This revitalized alliance raises the stakes dramatically. On one hand, it gives the Philippines a stronger security backstop. On the other, it turns the standoff at Second Thomas Shoal into a direct proxy for the simmering U.S.-China rivalry.

For MUN delegates, this scenario is pure gold. It offers powerful, up-to-the-minute evidence to cite in speeches and serves as a perfect crisis scenario to debate in committee. As you dig deeper, you might also find it useful to read up on other military incidents in the region, such as when two navy aircraft crashed in the South China Sea.

Wielding International Law as Your Strongest Weapon

When you're in a Model UN committee tackling the South China Sea disputes escalation, your most powerful arguments won't come from military might—they'll come from a sharp understanding of international law. The bedrock of this legal framework is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Think of UNCLOS as the constitution for the oceans. It’s the rulebook that nearly every nation, including all the key players in the South China Sea, has agreed to play by. Its whole purpose is to replace the old "might makes right" mentality with a clear, predictable system based on geography, not ancient history. This is your best tool for building a credible case and calling out illegal actions.

Key UNCLOS Concepts to Master

To really hold your own in a debate, you need to get a handle on a few core concepts from UNCLOS. These aren't just buzzwords; they are the legal ammunition you'll use to pick apart claims and build your own arguments.

Territorial Sea: This is the stretch of water that extends 12 nautical miles from a country's coast. Inside this zone, a nation has total sovereignty—it's essentially treated like its own land.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): This is the real game-changer. The EEZ extends 200 nautical miles from the coast and gives a country exclusive rights to all the natural resources within it—think fish, oil, and natural gas. Critically, this doesn't mean total sovereignty; other countries still have the right to sail and fly through it.

Freedom of Navigation: This is the principle that keeps global trade moving. It guarantees that ships and aircraft from any nation can pass freely through another country's EEZ and the high seas, as long as their intentions are peaceful.

These rules are so important because they directly challenge claims based on historical maps, like China's nine-dash line. UNCLOS is crystal clear: maritime rights come from land, not from history.

The Landmark 2016 Arbitral Ruling

The single most important legal development in this dispute was the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling. In 2013, the Philippines took the huge step of dragging China to court under UNCLOS, and the verdict was a bombshell that completely changed the legal dynamics.

The tribunal handed the Philippines a decisive victory, and its conclusions are essential for any MUN delegate to know.

In one sentence, the court legally demolished the foundation of China's primary claim.

The ruling didn't stop there. It also clarified that none of the features in the Spratly Islands were substantial enough to generate their own EEZs, and it found China guilty of violating the Philippines' sovereign rights by interfering with its fishing and oil exploration. To see how this legal mechanism works, check out our explainer on what is international arbitration.

China immediately rejected the ruling as "null and void" and refused to even participate. But that doesn't change the facts: under international law, the award is legally binding. For any delegate representing nations like the Philippines, Vietnam, or the United States, this ruling is your ace in the hole. It gives you a powerful, legally-sound basis to challenge China’s actions and push for a rules-based international order.

Your MUN Playbook for Crafting Solutions

Knowing the history and the law is a great start, but it's only half the battle in committee. To really make an impact, you have to turn that knowledge into a winning strategy. This playbook is designed to give you the talking points, policy goals, and resolution clauses you'll need to confidently represent key players and steer the debate.

Think of each country's position as a unique mix of its own circumstances—economic pressures, security anxieties, and what the public back home is demanding. A nation that relies heavily on trade with China and has few powerful friends will behave very differently from one with a solid mutual defense treaty and popular support for a tougher stance. Your job is to step into those shoes and argue from that perspective.

Let's move past the theory and get you equipped to actively shape the committee's direction.

Key Actor Positions and Talking Points

To represent a country well, you have to own its story. Here are the core strategic positions and the kind of language you’ll want to use for the main players in any South China Sea simulation.

The People's Republic of China

Core Stance: China’s claims are rooted in what it calls "indisputable sovereignty," based on centuries of historical discovery and administration. The nine-dash line isn't a new invention; it's a reflection of historical rights that existed long before UNCLOS was ever written.

Talking Points: "These are bilateral issues that must be solved peacefully, one-on-one, without outside interference." "We are fully committed to freedom of navigation—which has never been under threat—and we seek joint development for the prosperity of all." "The 2016 arbitral award is illegal and has no standing. We do not accept it, and we do not recognize it."

The Republic of the Philippines

Core Stance: The 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling is the final word on the matter. It's the legal foundation for resolving maritime claims, and Manila will defend its sovereign rights within its 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) at all costs.

Talking Points: "We will not give up a single inch of our territory or our rights under international law." "The constant harassment of our fishermen and the blocking of our resupply missions by the Chinese Coast Guard is a clear violation of UNCLOS and a direct threat to peace." "Our alliance with the United States is for defense only—it's a necessary step to protect our national interests."

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Core Stance: Vietnam’s claim to the Paracel and Spratly Islands is based on solid historical evidence of continuous administration. The only way forward is a multilateral solution grounded in international law, especially UNCLOS.

Talking Points: "We urge all parties to respect international law and stop taking actions that only make things worse, like militarizing artificial islands." "History has proven our determination to defend our sovereignty from any aggressor." "A legally binding Code of Conduct is the only way to effectively manage these disputes."

Regional and Global Power Dynamics

This conflict isn't just about a few islands and reefs; it's a massive stage for geopolitical competition. The roles played by ASEAN and the United States are just as important as those of the direct claimants.

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)

Core Stance: ASEAN’s top priority is regional stability and finding a peaceful way to resolve these disputes. It’s been working for years to finalize a legally binding Code of Conduct (CoC) with China, but deep divisions among its member states often stop it from taking a strong, unified position.

Strategic Goal: To maintain "ASEAN Centrality" by being the primary diplomatic hub for the crisis. The last thing ASEAN wants is to be forced into choosing between the U.S. and China.

The United States of America

Core Stance: The U.S. doesn't take sides on who owns which island. Its core national interest is in protecting freedom of navigation and upholding the rules-based international order. As part of that, it stands firmly behind allies like the Philippines.

Strategic Goal: To discourage Chinese aggression through military presence, including Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs), and by strengthening its regional alliances. The ultimate goal is to ensure disputes are settled according to international law, not by whoever has the biggest fleet.

MUN Bloc Positions and Strategy Guide

To succeed in your simulation, you need to understand not just your own country's position, but how it fits into the larger diplomatic puzzle. This table breaks down the strategic landscape, helping you identify potential allies and anticipate your opposition's next move.

Bloc/Country	Core Stance	Potential Allies	Strategic Objective
China	Sovereignty is non-negotiable; prefers bilateral talks over international forums. Views external powers (U.S.) as meddlers.	Cambodia, Laos, sometimes Russia. Seeks to sway neutral ASEAN members.	Prevent a unified ASEAN front. Frame the U.S. as an aggressor. Promote joint development on its own terms.
Philippines & Vietnam	International law (UNCLOS) is paramount. The 2016 ruling is legally binding. Advocate for multilateral solutions.	United States, Japan, Australia, UK, other G7 nations, and fellow ASEAN claimant states (Malaysia, Brunei).	Internationalize the dispute. Secure a strong, unified ASEAN statement. Push for a legally binding Code of Conduct.
United States & Allies	Uphold freedom of navigation and the "rules-based order." Defend allies and deter coercion.	The Philippines, Japan, Australia, UK, Canada, and aligned European nations.	Conduct FONOPs. Strengthen security partnerships (e.g., AUKUS, Quad). Isolate China diplomatically for violating international norms.
Neutral ASEAN Members	Prioritize economic ties with China while valuing regional stability and ASEAN unity. Avoid taking a hard-line stance.	Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand. May lean toward either bloc depending on the specific issue being debated.	Mediate between claimants and China. Keep dialogue open. Ensure ASEAN remains the central forum for negotiations.

This guide isn't just a list of talking points; it's a map of the political battlefield. Use it to build coalitions, craft resolutions that attract broad support, and navigate the complex currents of the South China Sea debate. Your goal is to find that sweet spot where your national interest overlaps with a viable, peaceful solution.

Answering the Tough Questions

Even with a solid grasp of the history and the law, some tricky questions always come up. Let's tackle a few of the most common ones you'll likely face in committee.

Why Does China Just Ignore the 2016 UNCLOS Ruling?

It’s a question that gets right to the heart of the matter. From Beijing's perspective, the tribunal in The Hague simply had no business ruling on what China sees as a fundamental issue of national sovereignty.

Their argument is that China's claims in the South China Sea, represented by the "nine-dash line," existed long before UNCLOS was even written. Because of this, they believe these "historic rights" aren't subject to the treaty's rules. By rejecting the ruling, China effectively frames the entire conflict as a political problem to be solved through one-on-one talks, not a legal one to be settled by international courts. It's a strategic move to keep outside parties out and avoid a legal precedent that could unravel their claims.

Is Freedom of Navigation Actually at Risk?

This is where you see two completely different realities clashing. On one side, you have the United States and its allies. They see China building military bases on artificial islands and harassing foreign ships, and they conclude that this poses a clear and present danger to both commercial shipping and naval transit. This is why they run Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs)—to actively challenge what they consider illegal and excessive maritime claims.

So, is it at risk? It depends entirely on who you ask and how they define "security."

Can ASEAN Actually Solve This?

While ASEAN is the main diplomatic game in town for Southeast Asia, it has consistently struggled to make real headway on the disputes. The core problem lies in its structure. The organization is built on the principle of consensus, which means just one member state can veto any meaningful, unified action against China.

This leads to a couple of major roadblocks:

Conflicting Loyalties: Not all members see eye-to-eye. Countries like Cambodia, which has very close economic ties to Beijing, are often unwilling to support a tough stance that might upset their powerful partner.

No Real Teeth: For years, ASEAN and China have been negotiating a Code of Conduct (CoC) for the South China Sea. But even if they finally agree on one, serious doubts remain about whether it will be legally binding or have any actual enforcement power.

Ultimately, these limitations mean ASEAN's role is less about forcing a final solution and more about managing the day-to-day tensions. It’s a platform for dialogue, not a court of judgment, especially when it comes to the South China Sea disputes escalation.

At Model Diplomat, we provide the AI-powered tools and in-depth analysis you need to master complex topics like this one. Go beyond the headlines and walk into your committee prepared to lead the debate. Learn more about our approach.