The notorious arbitration case will become a negative example in the history of international judicial and legal practice. In the meantime, the US has lost support among ordinary Chinese people for what had been a popular China policy.

The award in the Philippines v China case opens a chapter of a much broader and long-term relations between the states. While addressing some legal issues, it can not resolve all other conflicts, differences and competing interests. Rather, the conflicts are best handled between the two states through friendly consultations and negotiations under the prevailing Asian culture and core values of a non-confrontational approach, compromising sentiments, and a mutually understanding mind-set.

An EEZ claimed from the Spratly Islands as a unit could re-invigorate tensions between the two super-powers on the legality of military activities in the EEZ. China should carefully consider the long-term ramifications of a straight baseline declaration, not only in terms of its legality but also in terms of the impact it could have on an already volatile situation.

Neither Beijing nor Moscow have the intention to form a military alliance, which would conflict with a key component of the concept of “a harmonious world” central to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. China and Russia face different circumstances, and choosing a strategic partnership of coordination instead of alliance leaves necessary room for both to deal with their individual national interests.

The lesson of Donald Trump and Brexit is that while elegant in theory, globalization suffers in practice. Those who worship at the altar of free trade – including me – must come to grips with this glaring disconnect.

No country is willing to accept an international judicial judgment or arbitration award against its unwillingness, especially when such judgment is related to a major political issue that concerns the state. Thus, China is correct in its decision of non-acceptance in allowing a third party mechanism to determine a territorial dispute and maritime delimitation.

A new Penguin Special book attempts to recast China’s rise using eight “imperfect analogies.” Jared McKinney reviews the effort and reflects on the use of analogies in American political discourse, arguing that China’s rise broadly conceived still shares the most similarities with that of another contemporary great power: America.

Security Advisor Susan E. Rice met with senior Chinese officials in Beijing, China on July 25 to prepare for President Obama’s visit to China in early September and to discuss bilateral, regional, and global issues of mutual interest. This was Ambassador Rice’s fourth visit to China as National Security Advisor.

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.