DOCSLIB.ORG

South China Sea Dispute and Institutional Balancing: ASEAN, TPP and AIIB

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South China Sea Dispute and Institutional Balancing: ASEAN, TPP and AIIB South China Sea Dispute and Institutional Balancing: ASEAN, TPP and AIIB Takashi Terada (Doshisha University) Introduction China, the largest trading partner for more than 125 nations in the world, is in the position to uses its economic clout to realise its political and strategic interests. Economic interdependence, chiefly intensified by China’s trade and aid growth in the region, can thus act as a means of achieving China’s national interest, including its assertion in the South China Sea, as seen in China’s massive flow of aid to Laos and Cambodia that has been instrumental in dividing ASEAN members on the South China Sea dispute. Therefore, deepening interdependence does not lead to the political stability in East Asia. It appears imperative for the other claimants in Southeast Asia, as well as the United States and Japan, which also have condemned China’s aggressive and illegal actions in the South China Sea including the construction of artificial islands. ASEAN has, however, failed to take an effective means against these Chinese maritime behaviors, casting a stronger doubt on the organization’s usefulness for the regional security. It has been growingly difficult for any nation, which has increased their trade and, for some, aid, reliance on China, to pass strictures on China’s policy approach, and China has capitalized on the economic influence over some members for manipulating moves concerning the South China Sea in ASEAN-sponsored meetings. Accordingly, it appears rational to diversify trade and aid destinations of ASEAN member states if ASEAN can become more an effective institution for the contested maritime issues. Identifying excessive economic interdependence with China as a major source of its influence over ASEAN, this paper examines potential roles which regional economic institutions, especially the TPP, can play in terms of reducing the regional economic dependence on China. It argues that if implemented, TPP’s substantial liberalisation, mostly via high standards for trade and investment can depicted as catalysing interconnections in pursuit of common markets and shared economic rules that would ultimately reduce export dependence on China, a key factor in making many states susceptible to Chinese political influence. 1. Regionalism and soft institutional balancing The balance of power is one of the tenets of realism in international relations theory, and realists consider that states largely take a hard-balancing act, such as military build-ups and alliance formation, so as to preserve their survival and sovereign independence in the international system, and so as not to permit the emergence of preponderant states (Paul, 2005: 51). However, states in the Asia-Pacific region have not adopted such hard-balancing strategy neither against the United States, the preponderant state (Pape 2005, Paul 2005), nor China, the rising state (He and Feng 2008), in the post- Cold War era. Rather, regional states have tended to take a ‘soft’-balancing act against their pressures or potential threats, by way of, for instance, institutional balancing, which refers to “the activity of restraining a dominant country and reining in its activities in a multifaceted manner by engaging in the establishment, formation, or development of rules, international institutions, and forums of various kinds” (Tokyo Foundation 2011: 34). It is neo-liberal institutionalism that emphasises the need of policy coordination to manage the political complexities arising from growing economic interdependence, and that stresses the importance of international institutions to promote the process towards mutual gains. Yet, regional institutions also encourage a separation of inner and outer status and this network externality causes an unease to outer countries, and some states become tempted to capitalise on this discriminatory nature of regional institutions for its own interests, so realists can also see international and regional institutions as a potential significant tool in power-based international relations. Institutional balancing takes the form of inclusive or exclusive approach, depending on whether states’ balancing acts include a target state within the institution or excludes it from the institution. Inclusive institutional balancing means ‘states practice norm/rule-building to constrain other states’ behaviour or control and manipulate agendas to address issues related to their interests in multilateral institutions’, while exclusive institutional balancing implies ‘states consolidate their political and economic unity to resist pressures from outsiders’ (He 2008). In short, institutional rules can become a balancing device, particularly if member countries seek to use them in order to shape a regional order and set common rules, which the targeted state finds difficult to accept or involve. A key mechanism in institutional-balancing, especially designed to exercise an influence on the targeted states through economic agendas is trade diversion from the exclusive nature of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Benefits brought to a party to an FTA, such as the elimination of tariffs, generally victimise a third country not included in the agreement. This means a third country’s products that are more competitive in terms of quality and price will be replaced by the FTA country’s less competitive products thanks to the FTA, which will negatively affect consumers of the FTA countries, while exports from the third country to the FTA countries will be blocked and reduced. While tariff-free privileges will be granted to companies in the FTA countries, third country companies will be placed at a competitive disadvantage. The crux of this argument is the difference in economic power of FTA negotiating countries. As Bhagwat (2008: 43-48) indicates, all countries do not wield an equal amount of power; one country may be a major power in a military or economic sense, and thus have greater influence on another, so we often see a pattern where FTAs move forward due to the interest and influence of such hegemonic powers. In the case of FTAs signed by powerful countries, since certain third countries will have their market access inhibited, trade diversion concerns become clearer, which motivate another country to conclude an FTA with the same major power. In this sense, even if small and medium-sized countries conclude an FTA together, this will not necessarily cause trade diversion concerns, and even if a major economic power were inhibited as a third country, this major power can be said to have few motivations to conclude FTAs with these small and medium-sized countries. In other words, trade institutional-balancing effect would be more influential only when a large-economy takes an initiative. The following sections examine ASEAN, TPP, AIIB and RCEP as an institutional- balancing function, while China has capitalised on its economic prowess for its political and strategic purposes. 2. China’s economic strategy in relation to the South China Sea The 2000s witnessed China’s charm offensive diplomacy in Southeast Asia, as seen in its engagement in the signing of the ASEAN+1 Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) ahead of any other regional country, laying the foundation for China to exercise its economic influence subsequently. In fact, the influence of China’s charm and amicable diplomacy in East Asia made a conspicuous difference compared to Japan’s regional diplomacy, which primarily evolved around the alliance with the United States, especially when Koizumi and Abe were prime ministers (Terada 2010). China’s chief motive behind such an active ASEAN diplomacy lay in its effort to remove the threat perception towards its regionally expanding military and economic influence; a desecuritisation of its rise (Goh 2007). According to Khoo (2011), the extremely high level of precaution against China’s military rise exists as fait accompli in East Asia as a whole, and he concludes that the regional countries’ anxieties on how China would use its growing military capabilities encouraged their support for US continued presence in the region. Another motive behind China’s active ASEAN diplomacy is seen in its commitment to ASEAN’s economic development to help narrow the developmental gap, then called “ASEAN divide”, between under-developed Indochina counties and the original members of ASEAN. For instance, China, especially Yunnan Province and the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, engaged in the “Greater Mekong Sub-region Economic Cooperation Program”, with four Indochina countries and Thailand, and actively delivered aid to the advancement of infrastructure and transportation sectors in the region. Consequently, China accomplished the deepening economic interdependence with and the region, as seen in the trade volumes of the two provinces of China soaring 5-fold with Myanmar, 11-fold with Laos, and 6.5-fold with Thailand (Su 2012). China also endeavoured through its active good neighbourhood diplomacy to make Southeast Asia a cordial region for China, serving as a shield from pressures exerted by other great powers, especially the United States (Zhang and Tang 2005). Any effort to promote economic ties in ASEAN was viewed as one of the essential approaches for this goal. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Ellen Frost (2007), coined China’s economic diplomacy as “commercial diplomacy”, arguing that the purpose was to increase its influences on the non-economic sectors, including security, through the exercise of economic power that would provide the access to foreign markets. In fact, the trade dependence on China among US allies in East Asia has skyrocketed. For instance, whereas Japan’s trade with the US decreased from 27.1% to 13.7% between 1999 and 2009, the trade with China rapidly surged from 9.1% to 20.5%. Likewise, China’s trade proportions in South Korea increased from 8.6% to 20.2%, and in Australia from 5.7% to 19.7%, while the US presence in South Korea declined from 20.7% to 9.6%, and in Australia from 15.8% to 8.1% (Yamamoto 2012). In other words, the trade situation of major US allies in the region reversed between China and the US in 10 years in the 2000s.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South China Sea Overview
    ‹ Countries South China Sea Last Updated: February 7, 2013 (Notes) full report Overview The South China Sea is a critical world trade route and a potential source of hydrocarbons, particularly natural gas, with competing claims of ownership over the sea and its resources. Stretching from Singapore and the Strait of Malacca in the southwest to the Strait of Taiwan in the northeast, the South China Sea is one of the most important trade routes in the world. The sea is rich in resources and holds significant strategic and political importance. The area includes several hundred small islands, rocks, and reefs, with the majority located in the Paracel and Spratly Island chains. Many of these islands are partially submerged land masses unsuitable for habitation and are little more than shipping hazards. For example, the total land area of the Spratly Islands encompasses less than 3 square miles. Several of the countries bordering the sea declare ownership of the islands to claim the surrounding sea and its resources. The Gulf of Thailand borders the South China Sea, and although technically not part of it, disputes surround ownership of that Gulf and its resources as well. Asia's robust economic growth boosts demand for energy in the region. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects total liquid fuels consumption in Asian countries outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to rise at an annual growth rate of 2.6 percent, growing from around 20 percent of world consumption in 2008 to over 30 percent of world consumption by 2035. Similarly, non-OECD Asia natural gas consumption grows by 3.9 percent annually, from 10 percent of world gas consumption in 2008 to 19 percent by 2035.
    [Show full text]
  • A Move from the Himalayas to the High Seas?
    India-China conflict: A move from the Himalayas to the high seas? A risky naval blockade in the Indian Ocean is touted by some as a way to pressure China’s vital energy routes. By Dr David Brewster Last month’s clash between Indian and Chinese troops in Ladakh was the most significant conflict between the two countries since 1967. Despite signs of a partial tactical pullback in some places, there is considerable risk of further confrontations and even escalation along the disputed border. Some have been urging the Indian government to respond to China’s moves in the Himalayas by placing pressure on Beijing in the Indian Ocean. What are India’s options and how likely is it to take such actions? The Indian Ocean holds a particular place in the India-China strategic relationship. In almost every dimension, whether it be economic, nuclear or the conventional strategic balance along the Line of Actual Control in the Himalayas, India is probably at a considerable strategic disadvantage to China. Only in the Indian Ocean, which includes China’s vital energy routes from the Persian Gulf and Africa, does India have the upper hand. This has important implications for the strategy dynamic. Decades ago, prominent US Sinologist John Garver argued that in the event of a conflict between the two countries, India might be tempted to escalate from the land dimension, where it may suffer reverses, to the maritime dimension, where it enjoys substantial advantages, and employ those advantages to restrict China’s vital Indian Ocean trade. In strategic jargon, the Indian Ocean represents “interior lines” for India – where the Indian Navy is close to its own bases and logistics – and “exterior lines” for China, where its navy is operating with limited logistical support, away from home.
    [Show full text]
  • China Versus Vietnam: an Analysis of the Competing Claims in the South China Sea Raul (Pete) Pedrozo
    A CNA Occasional Paper China versus Vietnam: An Analysis of the Competing Claims in the South China Sea Raul (Pete) Pedrozo With a Foreword by CNA Senior Fellow Michael McDevitt August 2014 Unlimited distribution Distribution unlimited. for public release This document contains the best opinion of the authors at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the sponsor. Cover Photo: South China Sea Claims and Agreements. Source: U.S. Department of Defense’s Annual Report on China to Congress, 2012. Distribution Distribution unlimited. Specific authority contracting number: E13PC00009. Copyright © 2014 CNA This work was created in the performance of Contract Number 2013-9114. Any copyright in this work is subject to the Government's Unlimited Rights license as defined in FAR 52-227.14. The reproduction of this work for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited. Nongovernmental users may copy and distribute this document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this copyright notice is reproduced in all copies. Nongovernmental users may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies they make or distribute. Nongovernmental users may not accept compensation of any manner in exchange for copies. All other rights reserved. This project was made possible by a generous grant from the Smith Richardson Foundation Approved by: August 2014 Ken E. Gause, Director International Affairs Group Center for Strategic Studies Copyright © 2014 CNA FOREWORD This legal analysis was commissioned as part of a project entitled, “U.S. policy options in the South China Sea.” The objective in asking experienced U.S international lawyers, such as Captain Raul “Pete” Pedrozo, USN, Judge Advocate Corps (ret.),1 the author of this analysis, is to provide U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin No. 91 The
    Bulletin No. 91 Law of the Sea Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs Law of the Sea Bulletin No. 91 United Nations New York, 2017 NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the ex- pression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The texts of treaties and national legislation contained in the Bulletin are reproduced as submitted to the Secretariat, without formal editing. Furthermore, publication in the Bulletin of information concerning developments relating to the law of the sea emanating from actions and decisions taken by States does not imply recognition by the United Na- tions of the validity of the actions and decisions in question. IF ANY MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THE BULLETIN IS REPRODUCED IN PART OR IN WHOLE, DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN. United Nations Publication ISBN 978-92-1-133855-3 Copyright © United Nations, 2017 All rights reserved Printed at the United Nations, New York ContentS Page I. UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention and of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Convention relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Issues in the East and South China Seas
    Maritime Issues in the East and South China Seas Summary of a Conference Held January 12–13, 2016 Volume Editors: Rafiq Dossani, Scott Warren Harold Contributing Authors: Michael S. Chase, Chun-i Chen, Tetsuo Kotani, Cheng-yi Lin, Chunhao Lou, Mira Rapp-Hooper, Yann-huei Song, Joanna Yu Taylor C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/CF358 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2016 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover image: Detailed look at Eastern China and Taiwan (Anton Balazh/Fotolia). Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface Disputes over land features and maritime zones in the East China Sea and South China Sea have been growing in prominence over the past decade and could lead to serious conflict among the claimant countries.
    [Show full text]
  • US-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas
    U.S.-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 8, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R42784 U.S.-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas Summary Over the past several years, the South China Sea (SCS) has emerged as an arena of U.S.-China strategic competition. China’s actions in the SCS—including extensive island-building and base- construction activities at sites that it occupies in the Spratly Islands, as well as actions by its maritime forces to assert China’s claims against competing claims by regional neighbors such as the Philippines and Vietnam—have heightened concerns among U.S. observers that China is gaining effective control of the SCS, an area of strategic, political, and economic importance to the United States and its allies and partners. Actions by China’s maritime forces at the Japan- administered Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea (ECS) are another concern for U.S. observers. Chinese domination of China’s near-seas region—meaning the SCS and ECS, along with the Yellow Sea—could substantially affect U.S. strategic, political, and economic interests in the Indo-Pacific region and elsewhere. Potential general U.S. goals for U.S.-China strategic competition in the SCS and ECS include but are not necessarily limited to the following: fulfilling U.S. security commitments in the Western Pacific, including treaty commitments to Japan and the Philippines; maintaining and enhancing the U.S.-led security architecture in the Western Pacific, including U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Southeast Asia.Pdf
    Standards SS7G9 The student will locate selected features in Southern and Eastern Asia. a. Locate on a world and regional political-physical map: Ganges River, Huang He (Yellow River), Indus River, Mekong River, Yangtze (Chang Jiang) River, Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean, Sea of Japan, South China Sea, Yellow Sea, Gobi Desert, Taklimakan Desert, Himalayan Mountains, and Korean Peninsula. b. Locate on a world and regional political-physical map the countries of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Vietnam. Directions: Label the following countries on the political map of Asia. • China • North Korea • India • South Korea • Indonesia • Vietnam • Japan Directions: I. Draw and label the physical features listed below on the map of Asia. • Ganges River • Mekong River • Huang He (Yellow River) • Yangtze River • Indus River • Himalayan Mountains • Taklimakan Desert • Gobi Desert II. Label the following physical features on the map of Asia. • Bay of Bengal • Yellow Sea • Color the rivers DARK BLUE. • Color all other bodies of water LIGHT • Indian Ocean BLUE (or TEAL). • Sea of Japan • Color the deserts BROWN. • Korean Peninsula • Draw triangles for mountains and color • South China Sea them GREEN. • Color the peninsula RED. Directions: I. Draw and label the physical features listed below on the map of Asia. • Ganges River • Mekong River • Huang He (Yellow River) • Yangtze River • Indus River • Himalayan Mountains • Taklimakan Desert • Gobi Desert II. Label the following physical features on the map of Asia. • Bay of Bengal • Yellow Sea • Indian Ocean • Sea of Japan • Korean Peninsula • South China Sea • The Ganges River starts in the Himalayas and flows southeast through India and Bangladesh for more than 1,500 miles to the Indian Ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Averting Conflict in the South China Sea: Steps to Restore Rules and Restraint
    AVERTING CONFLICT IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA: STEPS TO RESTORE RULES AND RESTRAINT SUSAN THORNTON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY before and could do so again with good will and cool-headed pragmatism. Chinese military advancements and increasing capabilities in the South China Sea, as well as the country’s bullying enforcement of its disputed THE PROBLEM maritime claims, threaten to undermine U.S. China’s continuing aggressive assertions of its interests in the Asia-Pacific region, including unlawful maritime claims in the South China Sea have preserving freedom of navigation, access to inflamed regional tensions, harmed the interests the global commons, and a credible security of regional claimants, undermined the Law of the umbrella for allies and partners. The U.S. will find Sea treaty and international law more broadly, and it increasingly difficult, however, to successfully violated China’s commitments under the Declaration defend the positions of allies and partners who on Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC).1 seek to exploit maritime resources or to exercise A Chinese coastguard ship sank a Vietnamese fishing sovereignty in areas of overlapping or disputed boat in April leading to a flurry of diplomatic protests claims in the South China Sea through displays from around the region. Chinese military exercises, of military presence as deterrence. The U.S. patrols, and construction in the South China Sea have administration has recently announced that it will increased, while China’s aggressive enforcement of deploy U.S. Coast Guard cutters to the Philippines its sweeping claims to all resources in the South China to aid in patrolling such disputed areas, which only Sea prevents other claimants from duly exploiting makes this dilemma more urgent.
    [Show full text]
  • Indo-Pacific Maritime Security in the 21St Century
    Indo-Pacific Maritime Security in the 21st Century Proceedings of an International Conference Sponsored by the US Naval War College and Lowy Institute for International Policy Edited by Thomas G. Mahnken Convened on February 21 and 22, 2011 at the Royal Australian Navy Heritage Centre on Garden Island, Sydney i Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, or the US Naval War College. ii No folio Foreword his volume contains the proceedings of a conference on “Indo-Pacific Mari- time Security in the 21st Century,” which was convened on February 21 and T 22, 2011, at the Royal Australian Navy Heritage Centre on Garden Island in Sydney. The conference resulted from the collaboration of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, the leading independent think tank in Australia, and the US Naval War College. Besides the contributors to this volume, this event brought together other distinguished scholars and practitioners including Anthony Bubalo, Lowy Institute; Malcolm Cook, Flinders University; Vice Admiral Russell H. Crane, RAN (formerly the Chief of Navy); Peter Dombrowski, US Naval War College; Rear Admiral James Goldrick, RAN, Lowy Institute (formerly of the Australian Defence College); Commodore Richard Menhinick, RAN, Australian Defence College; Alan Dupont, University of Sydney and Lowy Institute; Andrew Shearer, Victorian Gov- ernment (formerly of the Lowy Institute); and Michael Wesley, Australian National University (formerly of the Lowy Institute). The papers highlight the growing significance of the Asia-Pacific region and in particular the Indo-Pacific region.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10 Adjacent Seas of the Pacific Ocean Although The
    Chapter 10 Adjacent seas of the Pacific Ocean Although the adjacent seas of the Pacific Ocean do not impact much on the hydrography of the oceanic basins, they cover a substantial part of its area and deserve separate discussion. All are located along the western rim of the Pacific Ocean. From the point of view of the global oceanic circulation, the most important adjacent sea is the region on either side of the equator between the islands of the Indonesian archipelago. This region is the only mediterranean sea of the Pacific Ocean and is called the Australasian Mediterranean Sea. Its influence on the hydrography of the world ocean is far greater in the Indian than in the Pacific Ocean, and a detailed discussion of this important sea is therefore postponed to Chapter 13. The remaining adjacent seas can be grouped into deep basins with and without large shelf areas, and shallow seas that form part of the continental shelf. The Japan, Coral and Tasman Seas are deep basins without large shelf areas. The circulation and hydrography of the Coral and Tasman Seas are closely related to the situation in the western South Pacific Ocean and were already covered in the last two chapters; so only the Japan Sea will be discussed here. The Bering Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, and the South China Sea are also deep basins but include large shelf areas as well. The East China Sea and Yellow Sea are shallow, forming part of the continental shelf of Asia. Other continental shelf seas belonging to the Pacific Ocean are the Gulf of Thailand and the Java Sea in South-East Asia and the Timor and Arafura Seas with the Gulf of Carpentaria on the Australian shelf.
    [Show full text]
  • South China Sea
    (MPCBM*OUFSOBUJPOBM 8BUFST"TTFTTNFOU 4PVUI$IJOB4FB (*8"3FHJPOBMBTTFTTNFOU 8JMLJOTPO $ %F7BOUJFS - 5BMBVF.D.BOVT -BOE%-BXSFODF Global International Waters Assessment Regional assessments Other reports in this series: Caribbean Sea/Small Islands – GIWA Regional assessment 3a Caribbean Islands – GIWA Regional assessment 4 Barents Sea – GIWA Regional assessment 11 Baltic Sea – GIWA Regional assessment 17 Caspian Sea – GIWA Regional assessment 23 Gulf of California/Colorado River Basin – GIWA Regional assessment 27 Patagonian Shelf – GIWA Regional assessment 38 Brazil Current – GIWA Regional assessment 39 Amazon Basin – GIWA Regional assessment 40b Guinea Current – GIWA Regional assessment 42 Lake Chad Basin – GIWA Regional assessment 43 Indian Ocean Islands – GIWA Regional assessment 45b East African Rift Valley Lakes – GIWA Regional assessment 47 Indonesian Seas – GIWA Regional assessment 57 Pacifi c Islands – GIWA Regional assessment 62 Global International Waters Assessment Regional assessment 54 South China Sea GIWA report production Series editor: Ulla Li Zweifel Editorial assistance: Johanna Egerup, Monique Stolte Maps & GIS: Rasmus Göransson Design & graphics: Joakim Palmqvist Global International Waters Assessment South China Sea, GIWA Regional assessment 54 Published by the University of Kalmar on behalf of United Nations Environment Programme © 2005 United Nations Environment Programme ISSN 1651-940X University of Kalmar SE-391 82 Kalmar Sweden United Nations Environment Programme PO Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profi t purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Dominated Epicontinental Shelf: the Yellow Sea Example
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2001 Post-glacial sedimentation in a river -dominated epicontinental shelf: The Yellow Sea example Jing-pu Liu College of William and Mary - Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Geology Commons, and the Oceanography Commons Recommended Citation Liu, Jing-pu, "Post-glacial sedimentation in a river -dominated epicontinental shelf: The Yellow Sea example" (2001). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539616747. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.25773/v5-4384-vh22 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reproduced with with permission permission of the of copyright the copyright owner. owner.Further reproductionFurther reproduction prohibited without prohibited permission. without permission. POST-GLACIAL SEDIMENTATION IN A RIVER-DOMINATED EPICONTINENTAL SHELF: THE YELLOW SEA EXAMPLE A Dissertation Present to The Faculty of the School of Marine Science The College of William & Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Jing-pu Liu 2001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMl Number 3029880 ___ <0 UMl UMl Microform 3029880 Copyright 2002 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
    [Show full text]