Illustration of a stormy South China Sea with fragmented islands and a cracked gavel representing the need for UNCLOS revision.

Navigating Murky Waters: Why the South China Sea Disputes Demand a UNCLOS Overhaul

Nico Varela in Global Affairs August 2025 • 5 min read.

"Is the current UN Convention on the Law of the Sea equipped to handle the escalating tensions in the South China Sea? Experts argue it's time for revisions."

For over two decades, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has served as the primary framework for governing maritime activities and resolving territorial disputes across the globe. Its creation was a monumental step towards establishing order in international waters, yet, certain conflicts remain stubbornly unresolved. Among these, the South China Sea dispute stands out as a particularly complex and volatile situation, demanding a closer look at the effectiveness of current maritime laws.

At the heart of the issue lies the interpretation and application of UNCLOS itself. Some of its provisions and definitions contain inherent ambiguities, leading to varied interpretations by different nations involved. This divergence fuels misunderstandings and allows each claimant in the South China Sea to justify their actions under the banner of international law. The result is a deadlock, with escalating tensions and a growing need for a more precise and universally accepted legal framework.

This article dives deep into the specific shortcomings of UNCLOS in the context of the South China Sea. It highlights how these gaps contribute to the ongoing disputes and explores potential revisions that could foster a more peaceful and stable maritime environment. By examining the issues of island classification, baseline determination, and historical claims, we shed light on the urgent need for a reevaluation of UNCLOS to address modern geopolitical realities.

The Island vs. Rock Dilemma: A Gray Area Fueling Conflict

Illustration of a stormy South China Sea with fragmented islands and a cracked gavel representing the need for UNCLOS revision.

One of the most significant points of contention within UNCLOS revolves around the classification of land formations as either "islands" or "rocks." According to Article 121 of UNCLOS, islands are entitled to generate all maritime zones, including territorial seas, contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and continental shelves. However, rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own are not granted an EEZ or continental shelf. This distinction has become a major battleground in the South China Sea, where numerous small land features are subject to competing claims.

The ambiguity in defining "human habitation" and "economic life" creates opportunities for countries to assert their claims by occupying and developing these features. Claimants engage in activities like constructing airstrips, research stations, and military facilities to bolster their argument that these formations are indeed islands capable of sustaining human activity and therefore entitled to generate extensive maritime zones. This leads to a dangerous cycle of escalating tensions and militarization in the region.

Conflicting Interpretations: Different countries have vastly different interpretations of what constitutes "human habitation" and "economic life".
Technological Advancements: Modern technology allows for the creation of artificial conditions that can support human life on even the most barren rocks, blurring the lines further.
Resource Exploitation: The potential for exploiting mineral ocean resources adds another layer of complexity to the island vs. rock debate.

To address this issue, the authors propose the following revisions to UNCLOS:

A Call for Revision: Charting a Course Towards Stability

While UNCLOS has undoubtedly played a vital role in maintaining order at sea, its shortcomings in addressing complex situations like the South China Sea dispute are becoming increasingly apparent. By revising key provisions and incorporating clearer definitions, the international community can create a more robust and equitable legal framework for resolving maritime conflicts and promoting stability in this vital region. The path forward may be challenging, but the potential rewards of a revised and strengthened UNCLOS are well worth the effort.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What is the main challenge in the South China Sea dispute that reveals a weakness in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)?

The primary challenge in the South China Sea is the disagreement over the interpretation and application of UNCLOS provisions. Ambiguities within UNCLOS, particularly concerning the definitions of what constitutes an 'island' versus a 'rock,' lead to conflicting interpretations by involved nations. This allows claimants to justify their actions under the guise of international law, resulting in deadlocks and escalating tensions. A more precise and universally accepted legal framework is needed to address these ambiguities.

How does UNCLOS define 'islands' and 'rocks,' and why is this distinction important in the South China Sea context?

According to Article 121 of UNCLOS, islands are entitled to generate all maritime zones, including territorial seas, contiguous zones, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), and continental shelves. Rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own are not granted an EEZ or continental shelf. This distinction is crucial in the South China Sea because numerous small land features are subject to competing claims. The classification determines the extent of maritime rights and resource control each claimant can assert, making it a central point of contention.

What actions are countries taking to exploit the ambiguity in UNCLOS regarding the classification of land formations in the South China Sea?

Claimant countries are engaging in activities such as constructing airstrips, research stations, and military facilities on disputed land formations to bolster their arguments that these features are indeed islands capable of sustaining human activity. This is intended to legitimize their claims to extensive maritime zones. These actions contribute to a dangerous cycle of escalating tensions and militarization in the region, as each nation seeks to solidify its position.

What revisions to UNCLOS are suggested to address the 'island vs. rock' dilemma, and how might these promote stability in the South China Sea?

While the provided text notes that the authors propose revisions to UNCLOS, the specific revisions are not detailed. The general idea is that by revising key provisions and incorporating clearer definitions regarding the classification of land formations, the international community can create a more robust and equitable legal framework. This can lead to a more peaceful and stable maritime environment by reducing the opportunities for conflicting interpretations and aggressive assertions of maritime rights. More specific information about the nature of the revision is not provided.

Besides island classification, what other aspects of UNCLOS contribute to the disputes in the South China Sea, and why does this necessitate a reevaluation of the convention?

The text mentions that, besides the 'island vs. rock' dilemma, issues with baseline determination and historical claims also contribute to the disputes. However, there are no specific details about how those two areas specifically impact the South China Sea. These shortcomings, when coupled with the ambiguities in island classification, necessitate a reevaluation of UNCLOS to address modern geopolitical realities. A comprehensive review and potential revision of these aspects could pave the way for a more universally accepted legal framework, reducing tensions and promoting stability in the region.