Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Australia, China and the maritime ‘rules-based ...

Electronic data

  • Beeson Chubb - IRAP resubmission-clean author copy

    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, , lcz022, https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz022 is available online at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz022

    Accepted author manuscript, 2.89 MB, PDF document

    Embargo ends: 6/11/21

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Australia, China and the maritime ‘rules-based international order’: comparing the South China Sea and Timor Sea disputes

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

E-pub ahead of print

Standard

Australia, China and the maritime ‘rules-based international order’ : comparing the South China Sea and Timor Sea disputes. / Beeson, Mark; Chubb, Andrew.

In: International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 06.11.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{30e1455fb6a6481e90d4bbc166e8e352,
title = "Australia, China and the maritime {\textquoteleft}rules-based international order{\textquoteright}: comparing the South China Sea and Timor Sea disputes",
abstract = "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{\textquoteright} foreign policies and the {\textquoteleft}rules-based international order{\textquoteright}. 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{\textquoteright}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{\textquoteright}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.",
keywords = "Australian foreign policy, Chinese foreign policy, Timor-Leste, South China Sea, Maritime Security, international order, International Relations",
author = "Mark Beeson and Andrew Chubb",
note = "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 {\textquoteleft}rules-based international order{\textquoteright}: comparing the South China Sea and Timor Sea disputes, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, , lcz022, https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz022 is available online at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz022",
year = "2019",
month = nov
day = "6",
doi = "10.1093/irap/lcz022",
language = "English",
journal = "International Relations of the Asia Pacific",

}

RIS

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, , lcz022, https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz022 is available online at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz022

PY - 2019/11/6

Y1 - 2019/11/6

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

JO - International Relations of the Asia Pacific

JF - International Relations of the Asia Pacific

ER -