The United States and China perceive the South China Sea issue in starkly different terms.

The arbitral panel had an opportunity to chart a constructive approach to one of the foremost legal questions of the Asia-Pacific. However, where it should have chosen to foster mutually cooperative tendencies on ill-understood provisions of the law, the award performed a disservice with consequences that will reverberate for a considerable time to come.

After the tribunal’s categorical ruling on the South China Sea, China’s new strategy could be to lower the temperature by reframing the issue away from rocks, sand and physical territory. It could then seek to reframe the issue around the potential multilateral benefits of China’s Maritime Silk Road concept.

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.

The Hague Tribunal this week issued a decision that will most likely become a tool in the hands of the defenders of the status quo. How events will develop will depend on Duterte’s disposition, China’s diplomatic sagacity, and America’s response. If the China and the Philippines are unable to meet somewhere in the middle, it is the “law” that China will reject.

After the South China Sea arbitration ruling, uncertainty and friction may increase in the region. However, the economic promise of China’s rise and the Asian century will only materialize with peace and stability in the region.

In ignoring an upcoming verdict on the South China Sea, Beijing is following well-established precedent by great powers.

From time immemorial, traditional Chinese fishermen have continuously, reasonably and with certainty plied their trade in the semi-enclosed waters of the South China Sea. These traditional fishing practices date back a long time, have been invariable and unbroken, and conform to basic principles of justice and utility.

Manilla’s arbitration requests in the South China Sea concern the standing of “historic rights”; the status of certain land features in these waters and the maritime entitlements they are capable of generating; and the lawfulness of certain Chinese land reclamation and law enforcement actions. Likely neither Beijing nor Manilla will walk away dejected, however.

The U.S. must accept that a major shift in the Asia-Pacific balance of power has already taken place, and minimize provocation. China’s South China Sea land reclamation isn’t necessarily forbidden in international law, as long as they aren’t used for offensive military purposes or to restrict trade.