4 Introduction

also signed a joint pre-exploration survey agreement for oil and gas in areas of
overlapping sovereignty claims. The agreement expired, however, in June 2008
and may not be renewed. The energy attribute may thus be viewed as a potential
de-escalating factor, although this might already have been undermined by rising
nationalist sentiments.
In terms of the distribution of power, one observes a growing asymmetry of
naval power to the advantage of China. Beijing is in control of the Paracel Islands
but remains essentially an irredentist power in the Spratlys. The claimant states
have still found an acceptable, although temporary, status quo on the power
question. This derives from the fact that China does not have the necessary power
projection to impose naval hegemony in the South China Sea, while the Southeast
Asian claimants cannot rely on sufficient naval power or an external military
alliance to impose their claims. The power question seems thus to be temporarily
neutralized due to limited available military capabilities. Nevertheless, the other
disputants still fear that China might one day use its growing naval power to
dominate the South China Sea and resolve the sovereignty question militarily.
Circumstances pertaining to the disputes have echoed wider changes in nationalist
sentiments and threat perceptions at the domestic, bilateral, and multilateral levels.
The book further studies the interplay of the three geopolitical considerations in
the maritime territorial disputes and explores the possibility for conflict management
and resolution. It is claimed that the geopolitical conditions involved complicate
the management and diplomatic resolution of the disputes. In other words, they
are harder to address precisely because of their geopolitical significance in terms
of territory, potential energy resources, and risk of power expansion. Keeping this
point in consideration, the question of how the maritime territorial disputes in the
East and South China seas might be managed and even resolved peacefully, in spite
of their geopolitical reality, is addressed. The prospects for managing and resolving
each case individually are analyzed by identifying catalysts that might contribute
to mitigating the geopolitical disputes.
The volume is part of the field of Security Studies. Its methodological approach
aims to combine a conceptual and factual understanding of the maritime territorial
disputes in East Asia. The methodology is based on a historical narrative con-
centrating on a description and interpretation of events up to the end of 2008. The
book contributes to the existing body of scholarship on maritime disputes in the
East and South China seas in two primary ways. First, the large majority of works
focusing on this subject area tend to be empirical, historical, and/or legalistic in
their approach.3 They often fail, however, to take an explicit conceptual stance
and to contribute to the wider International Relations debate. Second, most works
published in this field concentrate on a specific maritime territorial dispute rather
than adopt a wider and comparative perspective.4 A few books have, for instance,
been published specifically on either the South China Sea or the East China Sea
but very little has been done to compare and contrast these two maritime territorial
disputes. This research project makes an original contribution by offering a lens
to explain and compare the maritime territorial disputes through the conceptual
framework of geopolitics. In contrast to mainly empirical sources, it provides a