The Arbitral Court of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague is set to announce, on July 12, its final ruling on the South China Sea arbitration case, which was unilaterally filed by the Philippines against China. Deeming the case as a political farce played in the name of law by Manila, China has repeatedly reiterated its stance of non-acceptance and non-participation, and still advocates for a settlement to the dispute through negotiations. By mid-June, the number of countries that expressed support for China’s stance had risen to 60, and is still growing.
Why could China win such widespread support for its stance of opposing the arbitration case? This demonstrates that China stands by justice, and most countries also uphold and choose to support justice.
By bringing the case to the arbitral court, the Philippines is playing a villain’s trick. The islands and reefs in the South China Sea have been belonging to China since ancient times, and no country had voiced objections to this. On the world maps published by all countries, the sea is all marked as South China Sea. In fact, many important international treaties have clearly demarcated the Philippine borders, for example, the 1900 Treaty of Washington between Spain and the US and the 1930 Treaty between Great Britain and the US, all limiting Philippine territorial limits to the 118th degree longitude east. In plain language, it means that Philippine territory is located east of that meridian line, but the Huangyan Island (Scarborough Shoal as it’s known in the West) and other South China Sea islands are all situated west of the meridian line, and have never been in the scope of Philippine territory. The Philippines previously acknowledged this fact. After rich resources such as oil and gas reserves were discovered in the South China Sea in the 1970s, however, countries including the Philippines raced to seize Chinese islands in the South China Sea, and the Philippines seized and occupied eight. China, of course, could not afford to let the Philippines interfere in this way. When Manila initiated the arbitration case, China immediately stated that it was an ill-intended move, attempting to legalize its illegitimate seizure of Chinese territory and subsequently deny China’s sovereign claims and maritime rights.
By filing the arbitration case, the Philippines has shut the door to negotiations for dispute settlement, and has breached the solemn pledges it once made. In the past 20 years, the Philippines reached and signed at least six statements and agreements with China on peaceful settlement of the South China Sea disputes through negotiations. On August 10, 1995, the joint statement issued by the two countries states: “Relevant disputes shall be settled in a peaceful and friendly manner through consultations on the basis of equality and mutual respect”; on March 23, 1999, the two countries issued the Joint Statement of the China-Philippine Experts Group Meeting on Confidence-Building Measures; and on May 16, 2000, the Joint Statement on the Framework of Bilateral Cooperation in the 21st Century was issued; on November 2, 2002, China and the 10 ASEAN countries signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, which promises that “the parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned”; and on September 1, 2011, China and the Philippines still issued a joint statement, which reiterated their commitment to addressing the disputes through peaceful dialogues.
In January 2013, however, the Philippines, without notifying China in advance, unilaterally filed the South China Sea arbitration case to the Hague tribunal. This is nothing but contemptible and dangerous behavior.
When the Philippines filed the case, it intended to coerce China to accept its illegitimate demands, which encroach China’s lawful rights. As early as in 2006, China, pursuant to Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, deposited a written declaration with the UN secretary-general, stating that China does not accept any of the compulsory dispute settlement proceedings with regards to disputes concerning maritime delimitation and relevant issues, laid down in the Convention, including compulsory arbitration. As a signatory nation to the Convention, the means of dispute settlement that China chooses on its own initiative must be respected and protected.
In accepting the arbitration case for a hearing, the arbitral tribunal has overstepped its authority. The essence of the subject matter of the arbitration case, unilaterally initiated by the Philippines, is the territorial sovereignty over some islands and reefs in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the tribunal’s authority, and the court has no jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, the member composition of the tribunal is highly politically charged, with its president being a Japanese with somewhat bias against China. The Philippines hired a strong team of attorneys, which is led by US attorneys who are said to be good at handling international cases. Many Chinese believe that the US is actually the behind-the-scene manipulator in the arbitration case. Therefore, whatever the arbitration result may turn out to be will be of no help in settling the South China Sea disputes, but will only lead to rising and worsening regional tensions.
In fact, many people of wisdom in the Philippines consider the South China Sea arbitration case, brought by the Benigno Aquino III government, as a stupid move. Not long ago, Estelito Mendoza, former solicitor general and justice minister, even appealed to the Philippine government to suspend the proceedings and suggested for the government to postpone the case at least until July 31, “so that the new president will have a full range of options, including withdrawing the case.” Recently, the new president Rodrigo Duterte said he would await the ruling and then be ready to talk to China whatever the outcome.
