Territorial disputes have since long been a source of conflict. Still today, economic, political and security interests lead to rising tensions in areas with disputed territories. To date, two of...Show moreTerritorial disputes have since long been a source of conflict. Still today, economic, political and security interests lead to rising tensions in areas with disputed territories. To date, two of these hot areas are the South China Sea (SCS) and the waters of the Arctic region. In the SCS, Chinese claims and activities stand out. In the past years, China has not only continued its, by the international society regarded unlawful, claims of waters, islands and reefs in the area, it has also started to build islands on which it engages in military activities. Initially, the United States (US) was not keen on getting involved in the numerous disputes over territory and adopted a policy of refusing to comment on or participate in any of the clashes. Lately however, the US has expressed its disapproval of Chinese activities and it has transferred vessels to the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) states to contain the Chinese threat in the area (Yoon, 2015). Free access to the SCS is of high importance to the US, both economically as well as geopolitically (Bouchat, 2014), and it considers the respect for international law a national interest (Landler, 2010; Lajeunesse & Huebert, 2019). In addition to the SCS, the Arctic region too has been the scene of controversy for the states surrounding it (Birdwell, 2016). Due to the effects of climate change, the Arctic is now an area with ample opportunities and potential for the winning of natural resources (Conley & Kraut, 2011). Clearly, high economic and strategic interests are at stake in the changing polar region. The effects of climate change have made the Arctic Circle into a centre of geopolitics and territorial disputes with direct implications for US security. Despite these high stakes, the US has mostly lagged behind on other states. The position of the US in the disputes in these highly strategic areas is noteworthy. It raises the question why the hegemon of this current, unipolar world, does not take on a more active and assertive role. If it wants to maintain its unique position, why does it seem as is if it has been reluctant to address these possible threats to its position?Show less
