The Strait of Hormuz often makes headlines over disruptions, while the South China Sea—despite disputes—has remained largely open to navigation for years. What explains this difference?
At first glance, both the Hormuz Strait and the South China Sea are critical sea lanes. But their stability outcomes are quite different—and that difference is not accidental.
(A police speed boat patrols the port as oil tankers and high speed crafts sit anchored at Muscat Anchorage near the Strait of Hormuz on March 30, 2026 in Muscat, Oman.)
The South China Sea has long maintained uninterrupted navigation
There have been occasional twists and turns, but the South China Sea has never been substantially affected by the disputes.
Regional countries—including China and ASEAN members—have consistently benefited from keeping sea lanes open.
“Shelving disputes and pursuing cooperation” has been a key practice
One of the most important reasons for this stability is a shared regional approach:
- Disputes are acknowledged but not allowed to dominate relations
- Countries prioritize practical cooperation (e.g., fisheries, environmental protection, maritime safety)
- There is a long-standing emphasis on joint development and dialogue
This pragmatic mindset contrasts sharply with zero-sum security dynamics seen in some other regions.
Regional rules and political commitments matter
A central mechanism is the DOC, agreed between China and ASEAN countries.
Although not legally binding, it has been effective because:
- It sets behavioral expectations
- It encourages self-restraint
- It provides a framework for communication and crisis management
This shows that political trust-building tools can sometimes be as important as formal legal regimes.
Disputes are managed, not forced into premature resolution.
The SCS is one of the most complex mixed disputes in international law, involving territorial sovereignty, maritime delimitation, historical and legal interpretations.
Instead of forcing a rapid “final solution,” regional actors have largely focused on:
- Managing differences
- Preventing escalation
- Maintaining stability first
This gradualist approach reduces the risk of sudden conflict.
Regional ownership is crucial
Perhaps the most important lesson is that regional countries themselves have taken primary responsibility for managing the situation.
- Dialogue mechanisms are largely region-led
- External pressures exist, but stability depends on regional consensus and restraint
- There is a shared understanding that conflict would harm everyone’s economic interests
If we compare this to the Strait of Hormuz, several takeaways emerge:
1. Stability is not automatic, it must be actively maintained. The SCS’s calm is the result of years of negotiation, restraint, and cooperation, not the absence of disputes.
2. Managing disputes can be more realistic than resolving them immediately. Trying to impose quick legal or political solutions may actually complicate tensions.
3. Regional mechanisms matter more than external interventions. Locally driven frameworks tend to be more sustainable and better accepted.
4. Economic interdependence creates strong incentives for stability. When all parties depend on open sea lanes, disruption becomes a shared loss.
5. Dialogue and rules—even non-binding ones—can reduce risks. Trust-building measures and codes of conduct help prevent incidents from escalating.
The SCS shows that even in one of the world’s most complex maritime dispute zones, peace and open navigation can be preserved—not by eliminating disagreements, but by managing them through restraint, cooperation, and region-led governance.
That may be its most valuable lesson for other strategic waterways under pressure today.
Comments