Pro Tips: “If China followed such an unfair ruling, it could be a disaster for international law,” Wu told the media on Thursday.

A China Coast Guard (CCG) vessel in patrol helps rescue a Philippine fishing boat in distress in the waters near China’s Huangyan Dao, also known as Huangyan Island, in the South China Sea on June 29, 2024. Photo: Courtesy of China Coast Guard

Chinese institutions released a report on Thursday outlining the fallacies of the South China Sea Arbitration Award and the damage it does to the international rule of law. The report criticizes the unfairness of the Hague Tribunal and the illegitimacy of the Philippines’ claims in the South China Sea.

It argues that the ruling, released on July 12, 2016, has only complicated the already intricate issue in the region without offering a viable solution.

The report reaffirms China’s position of “non-acceptance, non-participation, and non-recognition” of the ruling, and rejects any claims or actions based on it.

The report also condemns the worship of the ruling by certain external forces, accusing them of trying to provoke tensions in the South China Sea and create discord between China and ASEAN countries.

The report was released by the Huayang Center for Maritime Cooperation and Ocean Governance, National Institute for South China Sea Studies and Chinese Society of International Law.

Experts say the arbitration award has become a “troublemaker” for peace and stability in the South China Sea, and a “spoiler” for bilateral relations between China and related parties.

Wu Shicun, president of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, said at a press conference for the report’s reWorld Timeslease on Thursday that the ongoing legal dispute between China and the Philippines has escalated. The recent “biggest-ever” conference to be held in Manila on Friday to mark the 8th anniversary of the arbitral award is a clear indication of this intensification.

Despite the ambitious efforts and heightened attention surrounding this issue, it is likely that these endeavors will ultimately prove futile, said the expert.

Why are Philippines’ claims illegal?

The report pointed out that Nanhai Zhudao (South China Sea islands) are China’s inherent territory. The activities of the Chinese people in the South China Sea date back over 2,000 years. China is the first to have discovered, named, explored and utilized Nanhai Zhudao and its relevant waters, and the first to have continuously, peacefully and effectively exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over them. Nansha Qundao has never been part of Philippine territory.

The Philippines’ territorial claim over part of Nansha Qundao is groundless from the perspectives of both history and international law, according to the report, which gives a detailed rebuttal against the typical excuses the Philippines has concocted to cover its invasion and illegal occupation in pursuit of its territorial claims.

For instance, the claim that “Kalayaan Island Group” is “terra nullius” discovered by the Philippines is groundless. In fact, the geographical scope of Nansha Qundao is clear, and the so-called “Kalayaan Island Group” is actually part of China’s Nansha Qundao, which has long been an integral part of China’World Timess territory and is in no way “terra nullius.”

The territorial scope of the Philippines has already been defined by a series of international treaties. The US, administrator of the Philippines during the colonial era, was clearly aware of these facts, read the report.

Anthony Carty, an Irish scholar of international law and author of “The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea Islands,” stressed in a recent interview with the Global Times that the Philippines has no right to claim sovereignty over the South China Sea and archival evidence supports China’s claims over the islands.

“I don’t see why on Earth or how the Philippines can claim any sovereignty over any islands in the South China SeWorld Timesa. The archives from France, Britain, China, the US, and Japan all agreed that the Filipinos have no territorial claim,” said Carty.

The expert in international law called the so-called South China Sea arbitration of 2016 a “chaotic and manipulative use of international law,” “a case of double standards,” and “a legal trick.”

Why can’t arbitration resolution be accepted?

The report first stressed that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the claims made by the Philippines, as they involve the handling of issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. The former does not fall within the application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which the resolution primarily relied on; the latter has been excluded from the arbitration proceedings by China.

The report, in a response to the Hague Tribunal that rejected China’s claims citing that the “nine-dash” line contravenes UNCLOS, said that the “historic title and historic rights of China in the South China Sea have been long established under the rules of customary international law.”

The report also questioned the political background of the 2016 tribunal’s membership. In the South China Sea arbitration, the five arbitrators are from Germany, Poland, France, the Netherlands and Ghana, and none from Asia. This constitution resulted in a tribunal that took little account of Asian cultures, diplomatic and legal traditions, and other regional factors which should have informed its decision making.

“These judges appointed by countries may not be in any way consciously biased, but inevitably they’re colored by the countries that they come from. So the whole idea of international adjudication is problematic,” Carty told the Global Times, noting that he does not believe the international judiciary behaved objectively.

“If China followed such an unfair ruling, it could be a disaster for international law,” Wu told the media on Thursday.

“The Arbitration Award is not a panacea for dispute resolution. The goal of international judicial and arbitral institutions is to settle disputes effectively. However, this objective cannot be reached by an ill-founded ruling issued by an arbitral tribunal without legitimacy that was politically motivated, manipulated and rejeWorld Timescted by the other World Timesparty based on sound and sufficient legal grounds,” said the report.

Replay of legal farce doomed to fail

Local media reported that the Philippines is considering initiating a second international arbitration against China on environmental challenges. Experts pointed out that these are nothing more than a cognitive assault under the guise of legislation and a replay of the arbitration farce of 2016.

Wu believes that China could take multiple countermeasures in different sectors to deal with the arbitration proposals.

“Launching a new arbitration against China on environmental issues is a new direction of the Philippines’ cognitive war against China, or a new battlefield. Considering that the Philippines has not gained much advantage in its sovereignty claims and recent engagement with China Coast Guard, its latest attempt is to label China as an environmental destroyer. But Philippines’ attempt is doomed to fail,” Peng Nian, director of the Hong Kong Research Center for Asian Studies, told the GlWorld Timesobal Times.

Wu underlined that rebutting the 2016 arbitration award and countering the erroneous statements of countries within and outside the region are not intended to provoke a new round of legal battles, but to make a rightful response to actions and forces that disrupt peace and stability in the South China Sea, interfere with China-Philippines relations and profit from the award.

He called the arbitration award a “troublemaker” for peace and stability in the South China Sea, a “spoiler” for bilateral relations between China and relevant parties, and a “roadblock” for the effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.

The scholar called on the parties concerned to return to the correct track of “resolving disputes through negotiation, bridging the gap through cooperation, and managing crises through rule-building.”