The issue of renaming the South China Sea has been suggested by various observers to counterbalance China's growing assertiveness in the region.
The name "South China Sea" itself is a relic of a colonial era when European navigators charted the waters based on their limited understanding of the region.
However, renaming it to something like the "Nusantara Sea" or "Southeast Asia Sea" could symbolically challenge China's historical and political narrative of the area, especially with regard to its controversial "nine dash line" and recent claims based on its 2023 map, which have been disputed by multiple nations, including Malaysia.
Historically, the sea was indeed called by different names such as the "Champa Sea" or "Malay Sea", reflecting the rich maritime cultures of Southeast Asia like Champa, Srivijaya and Majapahit, which dominated the region before Chinese power expanded.
This renaming could emphasise the contributions and ownership of Southeast Asian civilisations over these waters, historically speaking.
China's claims, grounded in its historical expeditions like those of Admiral Zheng He, are often painted as part of a peaceful narrative, but many argue that they masked China's growing influence in Southeast Asia and South Asia.
The reference to Zheng He's voyages to places like Sri Lanka (then Ceylon), Java and other parts of the Indian Ocean is often cited by China as evidence of its longstanding maritime engagement.
However, China's modern actions in the region are seen less as peaceful and more as part of an assertive geopolitical strategy, exemplified by recent incursions into Malaysia's Exclusive Economic Zone and the broader militarisation of disputed features.
Moreover, renaming the sea would emphasise that freedom of navigation and maritime rights belong to all, as the South China Sea (or a renamed version of it) is a global commons.
The region is of vital importance for international shipping and trade, with billions of dollars worth of goods passing through annually.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) guarantees certain rights to coastal nations, including Malaysia, while emphasising peaceful coexistence and dispute resolution.
A name change may not have legal standing in international diplomacy but would likely resonate politically, rallying Southeast Asian nations against what they view as China's attempts to rewrite history and alter international norms.
The idea highlights the importance of regional unity, countering the growing dominance of one powerful player in an area historically shared by many cultures and nations.
Contemporary Significance
The South China Sea is one of the most strategically and economically significant regions in the world today, which is why so many global powers are vying for influence over it.
Located at the crossroads of major shipping lanes, it serves as a critical artery for global trade - trillions worth of goods pass through the sea each year, accounting for about a third of the world's maritime trade.
It's not just about commercial routes; the region is also believed to be rich in natural resources, with significant reserves of oil and natural gas beneath its waters.
But the importance of the South China Sea goes beyond its economic resources. Its geopolitical value is immense because of its location. Whoever controls the sea has access not only to the wealth of the region but also to strategic military advantages.
Major global and regional powers - China, the US, Japan and India - understand that control over these waters means control over a significant portion of global trade, influence over neighbouring countries and a foothold in broader Indo-Pacific security dynamics.
For China, the South China Sea is part of a broader strategy to expand its sphere of influence. The sea sits along China's southern coastline and is considered vital for its national security, as it acts as a buffer zone for its coastal cities.
Control of the sea would give China dominance over regional trade routes and critical maritime chokepoints, enabling it to assert regional hegemony and extend its military reach far into the Pacific.
Other Southeast Asian nations, like Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, also claim parts of the South China Sea, particularly for the economic benefits tied to fishing rights, energy exploration and sovereignty over key islands and reefs.
These countries, too, understand the sea's economic lifeline status, but they lack the military might to stand up to China's territorial claims, making the region a flashpoint for international tensions.
Meanwhile, for the United States and its allies, the South China Sea is essential for maintaining the international rules-based order.
As the world's second most important sea route after the Straits of Malacca, freedom of navigation is crucial to global trade, and the US conducts Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) to challenge what it views as unlawful maritime claims by China.
The US sees itself as a protector of global commons, ensuring that the sea remains open to all, while countering what it views as China's attempts to rewrite international norms.
In short, the South China Sea is a melting pot of strategic, economic and military interests. With its vast energy reserves, centrality to global trade routes, and geopolitical significance, it has become the focal point of a great power competition.
Everyone wants a piece because control over these waters equates to not just economic wealth, but strategic dominance over one of the most important regions in the world.
International Relations theories provides answers
Hans Morgenthau and Realism is crucial in understanding the dynamics of the South China Sea and Chinese hegemony.
Morgenthau's theory of political realism posits that international politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature, and the struggle for power is at its core. In this context,
China's actions in the South China Sea can be viewed as a manifestation of naked aggression in its pursuit of regional dominance and securing vital sea lanes, resources and strategic territory.
Kenneth Waltz's Defensive Realism argues that states prioritise security over power, but China's aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea - expanding claims, building militarised islands - looks more like Offensive Realism, where power becomes the end goal.
Stephen Walt, meanwhile, extends this thinking with the concepts of balancing and bandwagoning: smaller states either form alliances to counter a rising power, like Vietnam and the Philippines teaming up with the US and Japan, or they align with the dominant player - think
Cambodia cozying up to China for economic perks.
China's push to control the region directly challenges the global order, forcing Southeast Asian countries into a dilemma.
They must decide: balance against China and risk escalating tensions, or bandwagon for short-term economic gains but lose autonomy.
It's a real-world drama where power dynamics - not ideals - dictate international relations, showcasing the enduring relevance of realism.
* The writer is an adjunct lecturer at Universiti Teknologi Petronas, international relations analyst and a senior consultant with Global Asia Consulting. he has a background as a senior researcher at the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research. The viewpoints articulated are solely those of the author.