| ID | 192520 |
| Title Proper | Rules-based order as rhetorical entrapment |
| Other Title Information | Comparing maritime dispute resolution in the Indo-Pacific |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Strating, Rebecca |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | In response to challenges to Asia’s security order, regional powers such Australia, India, and Japan have adopted new “Indo-Pacific” strategic narratives to promote and defend the “rules-based order.” These narratives use China’s maritime disputes with smaller neighbors in the South China Sea as a key example of Beijing’s revisionist intentions. Yet such narratives expose “rules-based order” advocates to risks of “rhetorical entrapment” as other actors compel them to abide by the standards they have set. To what extent have Indo-Pacific powers been forced to follow the rules in their own asymmetrical maritime disputes? This article examines three Indo-Pacific cases: Timor Sea Compulsory Conciliation between Australia and Timor-Leste, the Chagos Island Marine Protected Area Arbitration between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, and the Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between India and Bangladesh. To varying degrees, this article finds that strategic narratives constrained the policy options of all three Indo-Pacific powers. |
| `In' analytical Note | Contemporary Security Policy Vol. 44, No.3; Jul 2023: p. 372-409 |
| Journal Source | Contemporary Security Policy Vol: 44 No 3 |
| Key Words | Maritime Disputes ; Unclos ; Indo-Pacific ; Rules-Based Order ; Rhetorical Entrapment |