Rights statement: This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in International Relations of the Asia-Pacific following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version Mark Beeson, Andrew Chubb, Australia, China and the maritime ‘rules-based international order’: comparing the South China Sea and Timor Sea disputes, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Volume 21, Issue 2, May 2021, Pages 233–264, https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz022 is available online at: https://academic.oup.com/irap/article-abstract/21/2/233/5613762
Accepted author manuscript, 2.89 MB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Australia, China and the maritime ‘rules-based international order’
T2 - comparing the South China Sea and Timor Sea disputes
AU - Beeson, Mark
AU - Chubb, Andrew
N1 - This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in International Relations of the Asia-Pacific following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version Mark Beeson, Andrew Chubb, Australia, China and the maritime ‘rules-based international order’: comparing the South China Sea and Timor Sea disputes, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Volume 21, Issue 2, May 2021, Pages 233–264, https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz022 is available online at: https://academic.oup.com/irap/article-abstract/21/2/233/5613762
PY - 2021/5/31
Y1 - 2021/5/31
N2 - Despite systemic internal and external differences, Australia and China have shown striking similarities in their pursuit of disputed maritime resource and jurisdictional claims. This high-stakes area of international politics is governed by a codified, globally accepted international legal regime (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), making it an important case for examining the relationship between states’ foreign policies and the ‘rules-based international order’. In the South China Sea, Beijing is haunted by the legacy of its strong geopolitically driven support for an expansive law of the sea regime in the 1970s. Strategic considerations also drove Australia’s belated embrace of international legal processes in the Timor Sea in 2016. Before that, successive Australian governments had been as keen to pursue national maritime interests through bilateral negotiations as their Chinese counterparts. Australia’s shift was enabled by pro-Timor domestic public opinion and a confluence of geographic and commercial circumstances not present in the South China Sea.
AB - Despite systemic internal and external differences, Australia and China have shown striking similarities in their pursuit of disputed maritime resource and jurisdictional claims. This high-stakes area of international politics is governed by a codified, globally accepted international legal regime (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), making it an important case for examining the relationship between states’ foreign policies and the ‘rules-based international order’. In the South China Sea, Beijing is haunted by the legacy of its strong geopolitically driven support for an expansive law of the sea regime in the 1970s. Strategic considerations also drove Australia’s belated embrace of international legal processes in the Timor Sea in 2016. Before that, successive Australian governments had been as keen to pursue national maritime interests through bilateral negotiations as their Chinese counterparts. Australia’s shift was enabled by pro-Timor domestic public opinion and a confluence of geographic and commercial circumstances not present in the South China Sea.
KW - Australian foreign policy
KW - Chinese foreign policy
KW - Timor-Leste
KW - South China Sea
KW - Maritime Security
KW - international order
KW - International Relations
U2 - 10.1093/irap/lcz022
DO - 10.1093/irap/lcz022
M3 - Journal article
VL - 21
SP - 233
EP - 264
JO - International Relations of the Asia Pacific
JF - International Relations of the Asia Pacific
IS - 2
ER -