In the context of the South China Sea’s Provisional Measures Zone (PMZ), China has reiterated that installing structures claimed as aquaculture facilities does not violate the Korea-China agreement. However, experts highlight that while the installation itself may not breach international law, it is crucial for the government to consistently check whether China is observing procedural obligations during the installation and operation processes. Presently, China has deployed floating structures named Shenlan 1 and Shenlan 2 in the area, with the former being discovered by the Korean navy in March 2020, though it was initially set up in July 2018. Shenlan 2 is believed to have been installed between April and May 2024.
China categorizes these structures as facilities for deep-sea fish farming. Despite being floating, the structures are anchored with massive cables to prevent drifting, which may lead China to claim these floating structures as permanent fixtures. This action raises suspicion about strategic attempts to exercise effective control over the area.
The Korea-China Fisheries Agreement, effective since June 30, 2001, governs fishing activities in overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of both countries. Under the agreement, the PMZ is jointly managed by a bilateral fisheries committee focusing on the preservation and rational use of marine resources. However, only flag states can take action against their nationals and vessels within this zone, and not against foreign vessels and individuals unless they violate the committee’s decisions. The assertion that activities other than navigation and fishing are prohibited in the PMZ is incorrect, as the agreement does not actively forbid other actions in the area.
The senior researcher of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies suggests that issues like obstruction of navigational safety, caused by such structures, could potentially breach the fisheries agreement, albeit jurisdiction is flag-dependent. Furthermore, he emphasizes the need for Korea to bring the matter to the committee, ensuring that China’s actions do not negatively impact marine resources or maritime order.
There’s a highlighted need for Korea and China to swiftly demarcate their EEZ boundaries to eliminate ongoing conflicts related to resource use. It is important to consider resolving EEZ boundary demarcation through international judicial bodies like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or the International Court of Justice. However, delegating the boundary decision to a third party bears the risk of an unfavorable verdict for Korea.