Commentary
China employs lawfare by twisting interpretations of existing laws and creating its own rules to advance the Chinese Communist Party’s interests on the global stage.
In September, a China Coast Guard vessel deliberately rammed a Philippine coast guard ship while a U.S.-based “60 Minutes” news team was onboard. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) justifies such actions under China Coast Guard Order No. 3, a domestic law that empowers the Coast Guard to detain foreign vessels and individuals for up to 60 days if they are suspected of illegally entering waters claimed by China.
The same month, the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Select Committee on the CCP, citing fears of an espionage threat, demanded that a state-affiliated company, Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (ZPMC), which provides technology and equipment for U.S. ports, disclose its relationship with the CCP. However, ZPMC responded that it needed CCP approval under Beijing’s Data Security Law to divulge such information. The firm also required the committees to sign a nondisclosure agreement. These incidents highlight how the CCP is using lawfare as a weapon against the United States and other nations.
Lawfare—the use of legal systems and international organizations to achieve political or military goals without force—is a key tactic of the CCP. As part of its “three warfares“ strategy—psychological, media, and legal warfare—China employs various legal tools, including international treaties and national laws, to advance its interests. This is evident in Beijing’s territorial claims in the South China Sea, where legal frameworks are used to justify expanding control over territory and critical resources. Lawfare also allows the Chinese regime to suppress dissent, shape global norms, and pressure nations to adopt its ”One China” policy. The CCP steadily advances its strategic objectives by exploiting legal mechanisms while maintaining a veneer of legitimacy under international law.
In the South China Sea, an example of the CCP’s use of lawfare is its justification of the “nine-dash line,” introduced in 1947 to claim nearly all of the sea based on vague historical rights. By leveraging legal arguments and historical narratives, Beijing seeks to legitimize its control over nearly all of the South China Sea, its islands, and adjacent waters, including manmade or reclaimed islands. Despite international criticism, Beijing has militarized these islands, expanding its defense perimeter and asserting dominance. However, these claims conflict with the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of neighboring countries such as Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
The CCP rejects both the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which dismissed China’s claims in the South China Sea. This stems from the CCP’s belief that its domestic laws supersede international law. The Supreme People’s Court of China has asserted CCP jurisdiction over all areas under its “sovereign control,” a concept aligned with the CCP’s “core interests.“ These core interests include state sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity, national reunification, the political system established by the constitution, social stability, and the safeguarding of sustainable economic and social development. China’s disputes in the East and South China seas with countries such as Japan and the Philippines involve key aspects of ”state sovereignty,“ ”national security,“ and ”territorial integrity.”
The CCP has attempted legal maneuvering by claiming that China is an archipelago state, similar to the Philippines or Indonesia, which would grant it certain rights, such as treating the waters between its islands as internal waters—restricting foreign transit without permission. Normally, the U.N. grants archipelago status, as it has done for 22 nations but not China. Nevertheless, China’s claim aligns with its internal laws, which assert that foreign military operations within China’s EEZ violate Chinese law while also maintaining China’s right to conduct military operations within other states’ EEZs.
Another clear manifestation of China’s lawfare strategy is its treatment of Taiwan. Through the “One China” policy, Beijing has effectively isolated Taiwan on the global stage, using diplomatic and legal pressure to force countries and international organizations to recognize Taiwan as part of China. This claim aligns with China’s core interest in national sovereignty, as well as its Anti-Secession Law and the “One China” principle. Beijing refuses normal relations with countries that violate its internal laws on Taiwan. By invoking the “One China” principle, China has blocked Taiwan from joining organizations such as the U.N. and the World Health Organization, falsely asserting that this policy represents the “general consensus of the international community.”
Additionally, the CCP has intentionally misinterpreted and misrepresented U.N. Resolution 2758, adopted in 1971. The resolution was intended only to transfer Taiwan’s seat in the General Assembly and the Security Council to China, recognizing it as the “only legitimate representative of China.” It did not serve as a referendum on Taiwan’s status as an independent nation or determine that Taiwan is part of China. However, the CCP has used the resolution to falsely assert that the U.N. recognizes Taiwan as part of China despite that the resolution is silent on Taiwan’s sovereignty.
As the space race between China and the United States intensifies, the CCP is working to establish a legal framework that will govern space exploration and resource extraction. The same applies to deep-sea mining and the rights to resources on the ocean floor. The CCP seeks to shape international laws in these areas to favor its interests. While Beijing claims to support a rules-based global order, it aims to have those rules written by the CCP.
The United States and its allies must take a stand to prevent Beijing from shaping a new world order that would grant the CCP control over the Earth, its oceans, deep-sea territories, and even the moon and stars.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
