| Summary/Abstract |
East Asian states infrequently seek peaceful dispute resolution through binding methods of international law. What is puzzling is why states seek one particular dispute resolution method or another, and in the specific case of the Philippines, why the government chose to pursue arbitration against China regarding the maritime boundaries of the disputed Spratly Islands, knowing that China would not agree to participate. In this article, we theorize that the Philippine government chose to pursue arbitration against China for three strategic reasons: 1) to counterbalance China’s military actions in the South China Sea, 2) because of the strong benefits to the state resulting from using arbitration, and 3) the probability of winning the case using arbitration was perceived by the Philippines as strong. To test our hypotheses, we use interviews and process tracing, through which we find evidence for our suppositions, primarily the last hypothesis.
|