More than three decades ago, the Berlin Wall, once considered one of the strongest international borders separating nations, fell. Following the collapse of the wall, Kenichi Ohmae, also known as Mr. Strategy, stated that we lived in a borderless world. Now, we might ask, is that true?

In the final days of 2019, Indonesia once again grappled with the issue of China’s fishing activities in the north of Natuna Islands, which borders the South China Sea. Even earlier, the Chinese claimed the maritime territory as their traditional fishing ground.

On the other hand, Indonesia believes the area is part of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Through a rigorous geospatial analysis, Indonesia is, in fact, entitled to an EEZ up to the maritime area, pursuant to UNCLOS, which stipulates that every coastal state is entitled to a 200-nautical-mile EEZ (370 kilometers) measured from their baselines/coastline.

The next question is: What is the basis for China to send its fishermen to fish in the concerned area? Does China use UNCLOS as the basis for its claim?

One will naturally assume that China should ideally base its maritime claim on UNCLOS because it is a party to the convention. Surprisingly, that is not the case.

China’s claim is way beyond what UNCLOS permits for a coastal state. The Chinese maritime claim in the South China Sea is indicated by dash lines shown on a map it issued in 1940, which the international community refuses to accept.

Believe it or not, three decades after the Berlin Wall crumbled, we are still facing issues and problems regarding borders. There is a joke among scholars whose expertise is on issues regarding the South China Sea. They say, if we print and pile all scientific papers about the South China Sea, the stack might reach the moon already.

Countless articles have been published about the South China Sea issues in many reputable journals in different languages. Similarly, hundreds of theses have also been produced by scholars on their way to earning degrees in many academic institutions. Yet, final and comprehensive solutions have yet to be found.

What should be done regarding the South China Sea dispute? I am not pretending to be an expert here. If hundreds of scholars have worked for decades and no final solution has been produced, I better not to be too optimistic about any pragmatic solution.

However, I have my own view. I remember I was once asked about this issue when I presented a paper in Jinan, China, in 2016. A participant, who was a professor, asked whether or not China was wrong to stick to its not-so-UNCLOS-friendly position it claimed before the existence of UNCLOS. He added that we should not use a current law to assess the legality of an action committed before the entry into force of that law.

Honestly, that was a very good question that was not easy to answer. Well, not to mention the fact that I was in a conference full of Chinese support.

To answer that question, I used the case of the Philippines as an analogy. Before UNCLOS, the Philippines’ maritime claim was a square/box enclosing its entire archipelago. It was based on the 1898 Treaty of Paris and it was adopted in its constitution. So to speak, the claim was legally very strong. However, after ratifying UNCLOS, the Philippines voluntarily adjusted its maritime claim in such a way to comply with UNCLOS.

This, I said, is something that China can also consider doing. UNCLOS was established mainly to “tidy up” unilateral “messy” maritime claims made by countries around the world. So, it is logical, after ratifying UNCLOS, for a country to change and adjust its maritime claim, especially if the old claims were not in compliance with UNCLOS.

My opinion is not the only possible perspective regarding the highly complex South China Sea issue. However, I am sure that this is something that is logically acceptable.

Anybody can have an opinion and we have to be open for any differences. What we have to make sure is that all countries in the region keep talking to each other. A workshop initiated by professors Hasjim Djalal of Indonesia and Ian Townsend-Gault of Canada, “Managing potential conflicts in the South China Sea”, is something that we need to keep discussing.

Having learned what has happened in the South China Sea, we can tell that issues on border do matter and still dictate international interaction nowadays.

Now, I come to a new understanding that it is not that we do not need borders. Borders are important to settle so that the extent of our rights and responsibility is clear.

As Robert Frost once said, “Good fences makes good neighbors”. The term “borderless world” here means that we need borders not as a wall but as a door. Borders should not exclude one from another but promote interaction since we live at a time of collaboration, not competition.

______

Lecturer at the Department of Geodetic Engineering, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, with research on geospatial aspects of the law of the sea, especially maritime boundary delimitation. The views expressed are his own.

Popular

Indonesian workers in Japan face growing stigma after viral incidents

Political motivations behind rising cyberattacks in mid-2025, report says

High rice prices, education costs push up inflation to 2.37 percent in July