THE TRANSFORMING NEW STRATEGY OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA: FOUR SHA DOCTRINE

Öz

Presence of states in international system goes hand in hand with their economic, military and sociological endowments as well as the reflexes the states shown in formation process of those endowments. Those reflexes, which can be regarded as galeas surrounding the outer borders of the one and only actor of the international system that are states, must be taken into consideration as main indicator before gazing at the moves of those states. In this respect, the disputes we have dealt with in our study cover the countries located in the Asia-Pacific Region, called in ‘South China Sea’ and specially it includes the South China Sea strategy, which was revised by the People's Republic of China, one of these countries, following the decision of the Arbitration Court in 2016. At this cover in this study, firstly the position and history of South China Sea will be mentioned. At the same time, the claims of the countries towards the region will be explained chronologically and the final policies will be evaluated. Subsequently, will be sought answers to the scope of China's claims to the South China Sea and to the direction in which these claims evolved with the Four Sha Doctrine that emerged after the arbitration decision.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Asia-Pasific Religion,South China Sea,The Republic of China,Four Sha Doctrine

ÇİN HALK CUMHURİYETİ’NİN GÜNEY ÇİN DENİZİNDE DÖNÜŞEN YENİ STRATEJİSİ: FOUR SHA DOKTRİNİ

Öz

Devletlerin uluslararası sistemdeki varlıkları; sahip oldukları ekonomik, askeri ve sosyolojik olguların yanı sıra, bu olguların oluşumu sırasında gösterdikleri reflekslerle paralel biçimde ilerlemektedir. Devletlerin dış sınırlarını çevreleyen miğfer konumundaki bu refleksler, diğer aktörlerin faaliyetlerinden önce göz önünde bulunduracağı temel göstergelerin başında gelmektedir. Bu doğrultuda çalışmada ele alınan ihtilaflar, Asya-Pasifik Bölgesi içerisinde yer alan, “Güney Çin Denizi” olarak adlandırılan bölgenin kıyısında bulanan ülkeleri kapsamakta ve özelde bu ülkelerden biri olan Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti’nin 2016 yılında sonuçlanan Tahkim Mahkemesi kararının ardından revize ettiği Güney Çin Denizi stratejisini kapsamaktadır. Kapsam doğrultusunda, bu çalışmada öncelikle Güney Çin Denizi’nin konumuna ve tarihine değinilecek bu sırada kronolojik olarak ülkelerin bölgeye yönelik iddiaları açıklanacak ve nihai politikaları değerlendirilecektir. Ardından Çin’in Güney Çin Denizi’ne yönelik iddialarının kapsamına ve bu iddiaların tahkim kararının ardından ortaya çıkan Four Sha Doktriniyle hangi yöne evrildiğine yanıt aranacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Asya-Pasifik Bölgesi,Güney Çin Denizi,Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti,Four Sha Doktrini

Kaynakça

1. AKÇADAĞ, E. (2010). “Yumuşak Güç Japonya’nın Sert Güç Arayışları”, Bilge Strateji Dergisi, 2(3).
2. ATAÖV, T. “1898 İspanyol-Amerikan Savaşı ve Sonuçları” 1967, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 22(2). http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/ausbf/article/view/5000054602/5000051913 (03.07.2018)
3. ATEŞ, A. (2011). TUIC, “Asya Pasifik Havzasına Genel Bir Bakış” http://www.tuicakademi.org/asya-pasifik-havzasina-genel-bir-bakis/ (29.08.2019)
4. BADER, J. vd. (2014). “Keeping the South China Sea in Perspective”, The Foreign Policy Brief. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/south-china-sea-perspective-bader-lieberthal-mcdevitt.pdf (29.08.2019)
5. BAŞEREN, S. (1995). “Münhasır Ekonomik Bölge Kıta Sahanlığının Kavramsal Yapısını Etkileyen Bir Kurum Değildir”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 1.
6. BAUTISTA, L. Ve Schofield, C. (2012) “Chapter 16: Philippine-China Border Relations: Cautious Engagement Amid Tensions”, (içinde) Beijing’s Power And China’s Borders Twenty Neighbors İn Asia, ed. Bruce Elleman vd.
7. BEŞİKÇİ, M. (2007). “1894-1895 Çin-Japon Savaşı: Japon Emperyalizminin Yükselişi ve Osmanlı İmparatorluğu”, Toplumsal Tarih Dergisi, Mayıs(161).
8. Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi, Bölüm VI: Kıta Sahanlığı, Madde-76:Kıta Sahanlığının Tanımı, http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part6.htm (06.09.2018)

9. BLUSSE, L. (1996). “No Boats to China/The Dutch East India Company and the Changing Pattern of the China Sea Trade, 1635-1690”, Modern Asian Studies, 30(1).
10. BM Enformasyon Merkezi Unıc-Ankara, “Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi”. http://www.unicankara.org.tr/doc_pdf/denizhukuku.pdf (29.08.2019).
11. BOQUET, Y. (2017). The Philippine Archipelago, Capter 20 “South China Sea or West Philippine Sea?”, Springer Geography, France.
12. BRAUDEL, F. (1996). Uygarlıkların Grameri, (Çev.) Kılıçbay, M.A., İmge Yay., İstanbul.
13. Brunei Darussalam Country Report, http://www.eria.org/RPR_FY2015_No.5_Chapter_3.pdf (29.08.2019)
14. China Goverment China Adheres to the Position of Settling Through Negotiation the Relevant Disputes Between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea” https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/nanhai/chn/snhwtlcwj/t1380600.htm (29.08.2019)
15. China’s Maritime Disputes, https://www.cfr.org/interactives/chinas-maritime-disputes?cid=otr-marketing_ use-china_sea_InfoGuide#!/chinas-maritime-disputes?cid=otr-marketing_ use-china_sea_InfoGuide (29.08.2019).
16. Compare armed forces, (2018). https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_China_vs_Malaysia (29.08.2019)
17. Continuous boundary line proposed for China's claims in South China Sea, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/continuous-boundary-line-proposed-for-chinas-claims-in-south-china-sea (29.08.2019).
18. CRUZ De Castro, R. (2012). “The Philippines in the South China Sea dispute”, The South China Sea and Australia’s Regional Security Environment, National Security College. http://nghiencuuquocte.net/ wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-Philippines-in-the-South-China-Sea-dispute.pdf (06.11.2018)
19. ÇINAR, B. (2010). “İkinci Dünya Savaşı’nda Almanya’nın İki Cepheli Savaş Sorunu”, Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, 20.
20. Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti’nin Birleşmiş Milletler’e sunduğu 7 Mayıs 2009 tarihli metin, http://www.un.org/ depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mysvnm33_09/chn_2009re_mys_vnm_e.pdf (06.09.2018)
21. DAVIS, M. (2018). “China’s strategic strait in the South China Sea (part 1)”. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/chinas-strategic-strait-in-the-south-china-sea-part-1/ (29.08.2019).
22. DEDEKOCA, E. (2017). “ABD – Çin İlişkilerinde Kriz Yönetimi”, ANKASAM Uluslararası Kriz ve Siyaset Araştırmaları Dergisi, Aralık.
23. DENK, E. (1999). Egemenliği Tartışmalı Adalar: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma (Kardak Kayalıkları Ve Spratly Ve Senkaku / Diaouyu Adaları Örnekleri, Mülkiyeliler Birliği Vakfı Yayınları, Ankara.
24. ERYİĞİT, M. (2012). “Güney Çin Denizinde Sınır Anlaşmazlıkları ve ABD-Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti İlişkilerine Etkileri”, DÜBAM. https://www.dunyabulteni.net/file/2012/dubam-guney-cin.pdf (29.08.2019)
25. FINKBEINER, J. M. (2013). “Malaysia’s Great Power Balance and the South China Sea Disputes”, United States Army War College. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a589214.pdf (29.09.2019)
26. GERTZ, B. (2017). “Beijing Adopts New Tactic for S. China Sea Claims”. https://freebeacon.com/national-security/beijing-adopts-new-tactic-s-china-sea-claims/ (29.08.2019).
27. GHOSHAL, B. (2017). “One Year after the PCA Tribunal Judgment on the South China Sea”, 18 July 2017, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/one-year-after-the-pca-tribunal-judgment-on-the-south-china-sea/ (29.08.2019)
28. GRIFFIN, C.C. (2013). “Vietnam's South China Sea Territorial Disputes: A Path to Resolution”, Joint Military Operations Department Naval War College”, November.
29. GU, J. “Dispute Resolution in the South China Sea: from Joint Development to Joint Protection”, Shantou University, China. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/clusters/international/devconf/participants/papers/gu_-_dispute_resolution_ in_the_south_china_sea.pdf (29.08.2019)
30. GÜLBOY, B. S. (2011). “19. yüzyılda Uzak Doğu Asya’daki Güç Dengesinin Evrimi”, İstanbul Üniversitesi. https://www.academia.edu/10226291/19._Y%C3%BCzy%C4%B1lda_Uzak_Do%C4%9Fu_Asyadaki_G%C3%BC%C3%A7_Dengesinin_Evrimi (06.02.2019)
31. Güney Çin Denizi Tahkim Davası (Filipinler Cumhuriyeti/Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti), Çev. Selahattin Doğan, Küresel Bakış, 6(21).
32. HARADA, Y. ve Eifuku, S. (2018). “Chapter 1:The Security of the Sea Significance of the Freedom of Navigation and Related Challenges”, East Asian Strategic Review. http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/east-asian/pdf/2018/east-asian_e2018_01.pdf (29.08.2019).
33. HART, M. (2018). “Brunei Abandons South China Sea Claim for Chinese Finance”. https://www. Geopolitical monitor.com/brunei-abandons-south-china-sea-claim-for-chinese-finance/ (29.08.2019)
34. HAYTON, B. (2014). The South China Sea The Struggle For Power In Asia, Yale University Press.
35. HENDLIN, Y. “From Terra Nullius to Terra Communis in advance” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269792693_From_Terra_Nullius_to_Terra_Communis_in_advance (09.07.2018)
36. HEYDARIAN, R.J. (2018). “China’s ‘New’ Map Aims to Extend South China Sea Claims”, Asia Times. http://www.atimes.com/article/for-weekend-chinas-new-map-aims-to-extend-south-china-sea-claims/ (29.08.2019).
37. HIEBERT, M.vd. (2015). South China Sea Disputes: Papers From the Fifth Annual CSIS South China Sea Confrence, Rowman&Littlefield, September.
38. HUANG, J. ve Billo, A. (2015) Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea Navigating Rough Waters, Palgrave Macmillan Press.
39. International Boundary Study Series A: Limits in the Seas, “Territorial Sea Boundary Indonesia-Malaysia”, 10 January 1973. https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/61516.pdf (12.11.2018)
40. Japonya Çevre Bakanlığı (2019). “Long-term Perspective on Environment and Development in the Asia-Pacific Region” https://www. env.go.jp/en/earth/ecoasia/workshop/bluebook/chapter1-1.html (29.08.2019)
41. JORGENSEN, M. (2017). “China’s Rising Geolegal Sphere”, Opinio Juris. http://opiniojuris.org/2017/10/17/chinas-rising-geolegal-sphere/ (29.08.2019).
42. KAPLAN, R. D. (2005). Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the end of The Stable Pasific, eBook Chapter I: The Humanist Dilemma, Random House, New York.
43. KIVIMÄKI, T. (2002). “War Or Peace In The South China Sea?”, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS).
44. KU, J. ve Mirasola, C. (2015). “The South China Sea and China's "Four Sha" Claim: New Legal Theory, Same Bad Argument”. https://www.lawfareblog.com/south-china-sea-and-chinas-four-sha-claim-new-legal-theory-same-bad-argument (29.08.2019).
45. Law of the Sea Chapter XXI https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXI-2&chapter=21&clang=_en (12.11.2018)
46. LI, R. (2016). “Chapter 6: China’s Sea Power Aspirations and Strategic Behaviour in the South China Sea from the Theoretical Perspective of Identity Construction”, (içinde) ed.Enrico Fels Truong-Minh Vu “Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea”, Springer Publishing.
47. Limits in the Seas No.117, “Straight Baseline Claim: China”. https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/57692.pdf (29.08.2019).
48. LO, C. (1989). China’s Policy Towards Territorial Dısputes-The Case of the South China Sea Islands, International Politics in Asia Series, Routledge.
49. Ministry of National Defense The People’s Republic of China, “China’s Military Strategy”, http://eng.mod. gov.cn/publications/2016-07/13/ content_4768294.htm (29.08.2019)
50. MITO, L.A. (1998). “The Timor Gap Treaty as a Model for Joint Development in the Spratly Islands”, American University International Law Review, 13(3).
51. MIYAKE, K. (2012). “What Are China's Real Core Interests? General Assembly of the World Uyghur Congress Held in Tokyo”, Study of China Inc, 163.
52. MONTEMALO, M.S. (2016).“United States Asia Strategy: Policy, Power, Pivot”, The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, 17(13). https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1165&context=ur (29.08.2019)
53. Nanhai Zhudao Are China's Inherent Territory: White Paper, 13 July 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN8NTbpETGY (29.08.2019).
54. NIE, W. (2016). “Xi Jinping’s Foreign Policy Dilemma: One Belt, One Road or the South China Sea?”, Contemporary Southeast Asia. 38(3).
55. NOOR, E. ve Daniel, T. (2016). “Key Issues and Dilemmas for Brunei and Malaysia in the South China Sea Dispute”, National Asian Security Studies Program, 2(1).
56. OHNESORGE, H. W. (2016). “Chapter 2: A Sea of Troubles: International Law and the Spitsbergen Plus Approach to Conflict Management in the South China Sea”,(içinde) Ed.Enrico Fels Truong-Minh Vu “Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea”, Springer Publishing.
57. O'ROURKE, R. (2018). “Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress”, Congressional Research Service.
58. PARAMESWARAN, P. (2016). “Delicate Equilibrium: Indonesia’s Approach to the South China Sea”. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303361661_Delicate_Equilibrium_Indonesia's_Approach_to_the_South_China_Sea
59. PCA Press Release (2016). “Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China), The Philippines' Memorial – C.I. https://pca-cpa.org/en/news/pca-press-release-the-south-china-sea-arbitration-the-republic-of-the-philippines-v-the-peoples-republic-of-china/ (29.08.2019)
60. Permanent Court Of Arbitration, “In the Matter Of The South China Sea Arbitration- Before -An Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention On The Law Of The Sea - Between - The Republic Of The Philippines - And -The People’s Republic of China”, Pca Case No. 2013-19, 12 July 2016. https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf (29.08.2019).
61. Permanent Court of Arbitration, “The South Chına Sea Arbitration (The Republic Of The Phılıppınes V. The People’s Republic Of China)” Press Release, 12 Jun 2016, s.(1-2) https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Press-Release-No-11-English.pdf (21.11.2018)
62. PINOTTI, T. “China And Vietnam İn The South Chına Sea: Disputes And Strategic Questions”, Brazilian Journal of Strategy & International Relations, 4(8).
63. Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, 2014/12/07, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ nanhai/eng/snhwtlcwj_1/t1368895.htm (29.08.2019).
64. Proclamation of independence of Malaya (Kuala Lumpur, 31 August 1957), https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/proclamation_of_independence_of_malaya_kuala_lumpur_31_august_1957-en-51eb6 525-30ef-4078-8f83-27deee5e8072. html (12.11.2018)
65. RAINE, S. ve Le Mière, C. (2013). Regional Disorder: The South China Sea Disputes, ed. Stein Tonnesson, Global Asia Studies, (8).
66. Republic of Philippines, Department of Foreign Affairs, Statement of the Department of Foreign Affairs on Developments in the South China Sea, 21 May 2018,. https://www.dfa.gov.ph/ dfa-news/statements-and-advisoriesupdate/16722-statement-of-the-department-of-foreign-affairs-on-developments-in-the-south-china-sea (07.11.2018)
67. ROACH, J.A. (2014). “Malaysia and Brunei: An Analysis of their Claims in the South China Sea”, A CNA Occasional Paper, August.
68. ROSEN, M.E. (2014). “Philippine Claims in the South China Sea: A Legal Analysis”, A CNA Occasional Paper, (2) August.
69. ROSENBERG, D. (2009). “Governing the South China Sea: From Freedom Of The Seas to Ocean Enclosure Movements”, Middlebury College, Harvard Asia Quarterly-The South China Sea.
70. SALLAH, A. vd., (2009). “Malaysia’s policy towards its 1963 - 2008 territorial disputes”, Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution, 1(5).
71. SAMUELS, M. (2005). Contest For The South China Sea, Routledge Press.
72. SANDS, G. (2016). Foreing Policy Association, “Brunei, Silent Claimant in the South China Sea”. https://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2016/04/28/brunei-silent-claimant-south-china-sea/ (29.08.2019).
73. SCHOFIELD, C. ve Storey, I. (2009). “The South Chına Sea Dispute: Increasing Stakes And Rising Tensions”, The Jamestown Foundation, Novermber.
74. SEBASTIAN, M. A. “Strategic Management for South China Sea: Defence and Security Options for Malaysia”, Centre for Maritime Security & Diplomacy Draft Report,. http://www.mima.gov.my/images/page/research/Strategic_managment_in_the_South_China_Sea.pdf (29.08.2019)
75. SERIKKALIYEVA, A. (2016). “Güney Çin Denizindeki Sınır Anlaşmazlıklarına Çin’in Bakış Açısı”, Eurasian Research Institute, (84).
76. SHIELDS, D.L. (2013). “Working with Brunei to Get the Rebalance Right”, United States Ambassador to Brunei Darussalam, https://www.ciaonet.org/ attachments/26165/uploads (29.082019).
77. South China Sea: Battleships may lead to war - Malaysia PM, 02 October 2018, https://www.bbc.com/ news/av/world-asia-45719090/south-china-sea-battleships-may-lead-to-war-malaysia-pm (29.08.2019)
78. STOREY, I. (2014). “The South China Sea Dispute: How Geopolitics Impedes Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management”, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. http://web.isanet.org/ Web/Conferences/FLACSO-ISA%20 BuenosAires%202014/Archive/b1d7cb3a-0487-493a-92e5-4c85727ba1b9.pdf (29.08.2019)
79. SWAINE, M.D. (2013). “China’s Assertive Behavior Part One: On “Core Interests”, China Leadership Monitor, 34. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ full/10.1080/14799855.2013.795549
80. ŞEKER, B. Ş. (2011), “Deniz Alanlarının Sınırlandırılması ve Akdeniz Güvenliği”, Uluslararası Ortadoğu Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, Kasım(1).
81. ŞİMŞEK, M. (2008). “Türk Basınında Vietnam Savaşı: Ulus Gazetesi Örneği”, Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Kasım(42).
82. THAO N. H. ve Amer R. (2007). “Managing Vietnam's MaritimeBoundary Disputes”, Ocean Development & International Law, 38.
83. The Age of Imperialism (1870–1914)(online), Part I: Subject Area Reviews with Sample Questions and Answers. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ online.fliphtml5.com/qpfs/sdps/index.html (06.02.2019)
84. The Institute for Maritime and Ocean Affairs, “China Appreciates Malaysia’s ‘Quiet’ Diplomacy Approach In Handling South China Sea Issue”. http://www.imoa.ph/china-appreciates-malaysias-quiet-diplomacy-approach-in-handling-south-china-sea-issue/ (29.08.2019)
85. The National Interests, “China's 'New' Map Aims to Extend South China Sea Claims”, 30 April 2018, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-new-map-aims-extend-south-china-sea-claims-25628 (29.08.2019).
86. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (A historical perspective) http://www.un.org/ Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm#Historical%20Perspective (29.08.2019)
87. The US Department of the Historian, “A Guide to the United States’ History of Recognition, Diplomatic, and Consular Relations, by Country, since 1776: Brunei” https://history.state.gov/ countries/brunei (29.08.2019)
88. The US Department of the Historian, United Nation, “Brunei Darussalam’s Preliminary Submission Concerning The Outer Limits Of İts Continental Shelf”, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ clcs_new/submissions_files/preliminary/brn2009preliminaryinformation.pdf (19.09.2019).
89. The World Bank, “Military expenditure (% of central government expenditure)”, https://data.worldbank .org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.ZS?locations=MY&view=chart ; Malaysia - Military expenditure, https://www.i ndexmundi.com/facts/malaysia/military-expenditure (29.08.2019)
90. Tonnesson, S. (2002). “Why are the Disputes in the South China Sea So Intractable? A Historical Approach”, Asian Journal of Social Science, 30(3). http://www.jstor.org/stable/23654607 (06.02.2019)
91. TONNESSON, S. (2006). “The South China Sea in the Age of European Decline”, Modern Asian Studies, Cambridge University Press, 40(1).
92. TRUONG Thuy, (2016). “Rebalancing: Vietnam’s South China Sea Challenges and Responses”, National Asian Security Studies, 2(3), December.
93. TURAN, İ. (2016). “ABD-Çin İlişkileri Bağlamında Tayvan Sorunu”, Düzce Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1.
94. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ticaret Bakanlığı, “Brunei’in Genel Ekonomik Durumu”, https://eb.ticaret.gov.tr/ülkeler/Brunei/genelekonomikdurumdf.ctrl-state%3Dvcf1x6rv2_276 (29.08.2019)
95. TÜYSÜZOĞLU, G. (2011). “İkinci Dünya Savaşı Sonrası İngiliz Dış Politikası: İmparatorluk Yaşıyor Mu?”, Akademik Bakış Dergisi, (21). https://docplayer.biz.tr/1578958-Ikinci-dunya-savasi-sonrasi-ingiliz-dis-politikasi-imparatorluk-yasiyor-mu.html (29.08.2019)
96. U.S. Department of State, “United States and China Complete Dialogue on Law of the Sea and Polar Issues”, August 29, 2017. https://www.state. gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/08/273701.htm (29.08.2019).
97. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Analysis - Energy Sector Highlights” https://www.eia. gov/beta/international/country.php?iso=BRN (29.08.2019)
98. U.S.-Malaysia Partnership, 15 February 2012, https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/pm/ rls/rm/184846.htm (29.08.2019)
99. ULUDAĞ, M.B. (2014). Dünya Siyasi Tarihi, Paradigma Yayınları, İstanbul.
100. UN Law of the Sea, “Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 25 February 1992”. http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/CHN_1992_Law.pdf (29.08.2019).
101. UNCLOS, 14 April 2011, New York, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mysvnm33_09/chn_2011_re_phl_e.pdf (05.11.2018)
102. United Nation, “Brunei Darussalam’s Preliminary Submission Concerning The Outer Limits Of İts Continental Shelf”, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/preliminary/brn2009preliminaryinformation.pdf (29.08.2019)
103. United States Central Intelligence Agency, “Central Intelligence Agency map series: Brunei Maps 1984”, https://www.loc.gov/resource/g81985.ct001596/?r=-1.18,0.065,3.36,1.272,0 (29.08.2019).
104. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/tr/article.php?ModuleId=10007306 (05.07.2018)
105. UYGUR E. ve Uygur F. (2013). “Fransız Sömürgecilik Tarihi Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 17(3).
106. VELASCO, M.A.M., (2014). “Philippines – China Relations: The Case of the South China Sea (Spratly Islands) Claims”, Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(6).
107. Wawasan Brunei 2035, https://www.gov.bn/SitePages/Wawasan%20Brunei%202035.aspx (29.08.2019)
108. WEATHERBEE, D.E. (2014). “International Relations in Southeast Asia: The Struggle for Autonomy, Chapter 6: The South China Sea Conflict Zone”, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Asia in World Politics.
109. WELCH, D. (2018). “Philippines v. China one year later: A surprising compliance from Beijing”. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/philippines-v-china-one-year-later-a-surprising-compliance-from-beijing/article35660244/ (07.11.2018)
110. Xi Urges Peace, Asserts Sovereignty, During ASEAN Trade Fair, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bRFSuWNZcQ (29.08.2019).
111. ZHANG, F. (2017). “Assessing China’s Response To The South China Sea Arbitration Ruling”, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(4).
112. ZHIHUA, Z. (2015). “Why Does China’s Maritime Claim Remain Ambiguous?”, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. https://amti. csis.org/why-does-chinas-maritime-claim-remain-ambiguous/ (29.08.2019).
113. ZISKIND, J. (1973). ” International Law and Ancient Sources: Grotius and Selden”, The Review of Politics, (35