By Jared McKinney

July 18, 2016

"After much anticipation and speculation from the chattering classes, the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration has issued its award in the South China Sea arbitration case Philippines v. the PRC. The Tribunal's decision concurred with Philippines on virtually every question that it considered within its jurisdiction, systematically rejecting China's claims and censuring its behavior. The Tribunal's decision will be analyzed without end, but its five principal rulings are clear. First, the so-called 'nine-dash line' does not grant China any historic rights to resources in the South China Sea. Second, according to the Tribunal, none of the land features in the Spratly Islands are in fact islands: a handful are rocks, which generate twelve-mile territorial seas, but no feature generates an exclusive economic zone. Third, China has violated the Philippines' rights in its exclusive economic zone by constructing artificial islands and allowing Chinese fishermen to fish in the Philippines' waters. Fourth, China has unlawfully harmed the region's reefs and ecosystem. And finally, China's land-reclamation during the course of the dispute constituted tampering with evidence.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry, which has never acknowledged the Tribunal's jurisdiction in the matter, responded simply: 'The award is null and void and has no binding force.' Other commentators have observed, 'No permanent member of the UN Security Council has ever complied with a ruling by the PCA on an issue involving the Law of the Sea.' China's rejection of the decision is not something uniquely Chinese but standard great-power behavior. Still others point out that America's position—which enjoins Chinese acceptance of the decision—is contradictory not simply because the U.S. has not signed UNCLOS, nor even because it has never submitted itself to the jurisdiction of an international court in a matter it deems a vital interest, but because its defense of the 'rules-based order' is selective: the U.S. challenges 'excessive maritime claims,' except when it doesn’t."

Read more:
http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/the-philippines-v-china-tragedy-and-the-hague/

NISCSS does not necessarily share in or endorse the opinions of off-site commentators.