There is an apparent risk that the US and China will each believe that they promote a win-win international order while suspecting the other of “power politics.” However, the real issue is not a simple choice between mutually beneficial interactions and realpolitik. What is really at stake is the question of which rules will govern a post-realpolitik order, and what kinds of power structures are necessary to support it. Here the US and China have much work to do in order to find converging paths.

ASEAN and countries that make claims against China similar to the Philippines must pay more attention to the stability of the South China Sea, work closely with China, and avoid being fraudulently manipulated by third parties with their own political agendas.

China’s advocacy of win-win cooperation marks the extension of its development philosophy to the rest of the world. Returning good for good and making concerted efforts to overcome difficulties are the spiritual mainstays of win-win cooperation and the soul of the new type of international relationship.

China wishes both the EU and the UK prosperity and success in the future. With Brexit having little relevance in China-EU relations, it should not become a distraction in developing and improving ties.

Last week, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) issued a sweeping repudiation of China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea. The ruling’s significance will soon be tested at the July ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting. The positive potential of the decision lies in its capacity to align the incentives of the various claimants and facilitate more genuine multilateral talks on a thoroughly multilateral feud.

China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea and adjacent waters is a reasonable, legitimate historical fact that can’t be denied by any party, any means. It is utterly groundless to accuse China of violating international law, and the US-inspired tribunal merely increases tension to no purpose.

Though The Hague ruling pertains to the Philippines-China dispute, it will bolster similar claims by other states against China’s nine-dash line; it will increase pressure on China to seek a negotiated resolution to the overlapping claims; and it will circumscribe China’s SCS claims. In response, China must assure the ASEAN states of its benign intentions, dispelling impressions of hegemonic intentions.

Dispute settlement by peaceful means is essential to building harmonious interstate relations. However, Beijing’s dismissal of the tribunal’s ruling is in keeping with its broader opposition to settling disputes with its neighbors — from Japan and South Korea to India and tiny Bhutan — by means of international mediation, arbitration or adjudication.

Nationalist sentiments represent both an opportunity and a challenge for the Chinese government, which wants to harness public opinion but fears its power to destabilize the regime. Whatever actions the United States and its allies take in the wake of the ruling, a minimum of publicity and a clear legal rationale is likely the most effective course of action.

The Philippine government does not want the Tribunal ruling to escalate security tensions in the South China Sea, acknowledging the enormous enforcement challenge with China’s rejection of the ruling. President Duterte is now counting on China’s goodwill. The arbitral ruling should guide China on how to behave more responsibly in the South China Sea.