China’s challenge to the global commons: compliance, contestation, and subversion in the maritime and cyber domains
| Date | 01 September 2021 |
| Author | Kristi Govella |
| DOI | 10.1177/00471178211036228 |
| Published date | 01 September 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211036228
International Relations
2021, Vol. 35(3) 446 –468
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00471178211036228
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
China’s challenge to the
global commons: compliance,
contestation, and subversion
in the maritime and cyber
domains
Kristi Govella
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Abstract
It is often predicted that rising powers such as China will seek to reshape the international
order as they gain influence. Drawing on comparative analysis of the maritime and cyber
domains, this article argues that China poses a challenge to the global commons because its
actions reflect a pragmatic focus on national interest that that disrupts more collaborative
conceptions of their governance. However, instead of directly rejecting existing regimes, China
has pursued a mixed strategy of complying when these regimes confer benefits and employing
contestation or subversion when they conflict with its strategic aims. In particular, China has
used contestation and subversion to push for the enclosure of the maritime and cyber domains,
extending ideas of sovereignty and territoriality to them to varying extents. While the relatively
well-institutionalized nature of maritime governance has limited China’s focus to the application
of specific rules in areas where it prioritizes sovereign control, the embryonic status of the cyber
regime has enabled China to call into question the fundamental definition of cyberspace as a
global common. Subversion has also allowed China to accomplish strategic goals through ‘gray
zone’ tactics, resulting in increased conflict below the level of war in both domains.
Keywords
China, conflict, contestation, compliance, cyberspace, global commons, governance,
international order, maritime security, South China Sea, subversion
Corresponding author:
Kristi Govella, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Moore Hall Room 416, 1890 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI
96822-2234, USA.
Email: kgovella@hawaii.edu
1036228IRE0010.1177/00471178211036228International RelationsGovella
research-article2021
Article
Govella 447
Introduction
The global commons – domains beyond the sovereign jurisdiction of any single state –
are essential to the stability and prosperity of the international order, providing public
goods and common goods such as trade routes, transportation and communication net-
works, fish stocks, satellite imagery, global positioning, and e-commerce infrastructure
that benefit countries around the world.1 For much of history, states lacked the capacity
to establish control over the commons; domains like the high seas or outer space were
simply too difficult for most states to access, much less dominate. Over time, however,
advances in and diffusion of technology enabled first the major powers and then other
states to become more active in the global commons.2 Technological advances also led
to the creation of a potential new man-made virtual common in the form of cyberspace.
In each domain of the global commons, states have tried to come to agreements about
how their spaces and resources should be used in order to permit broad access, avoid
conflict, and enable cooperation. The governance of these domains is facilitated by a
number of issue-specific regimes developed over dramatically different periods of time,
ranging from centuries in the case of the oceans to a few short decades for cyberspace.3
These regimes manifest not only in formal international laws and organizations but also
in norms, principles, rules, and decision-making procedures that regulate state behavior
in these domains.4 Some of these regimes are freestanding, while others are nested within
bodies of international law such as the law of the sea. The doctrines of several regimes
and their associated bodies of law are underpinned by notions such as ‘common heritage
of humanity’, ‘common concern of humankind’, and ‘intergenerational equity’ that
emphasize the importance of these domains to all people now and in the future.5
Across these domains, disagreement remains about how they should be appropriately
governed. Their respective regimes often reflect compromises between the desire for
broad access and the desire for enclosure. This tension exists with respect to the resources
contained in the domains, which can be characterized by different degrees of excludabil-
ity and subtractability, and with respect to the domains themselves, which are also stra-
tegically important spaces. For example, ‘command of the commons’ has constituted the
military foundation of American hegemony, though the preeminence of the United States
in these domains has gradually waned.6 Since the late 2000s, China’s dramatic rise has
led to intensifying Sino-American competition across multiple arenas of international
politics, including the global commons, sparking concerns about escalation of conflict.7
However, despite predictions that this power transition would result in the emergence of
conflict or a reshaping of the international order, the global commons have remained
remarkably peaceful and their governance regimes largely unchanged.8
As emerging powers rise within an international system that was designed for the benefit
of others, how do they approach existing regimes? Why have the domains of the global
commons remained relatively peaceful, despite their weakly governed, semi-anarchic state?
This article examines these questions through comparative case studies of China’s approach
to the maritime and cyber domains. As a rising power, China has become more active in
these two domains over time, and it has had to make strategic decisions about how to
approach their governance regimes. Comparing the maritime and cyber domains – the
oldest, most well-institutionalized domain and the newest, least-institutionalized
To continue reading
Request your trial