A pointless exercise in futility

By seeking arbitration the Philippines is seeking to 'legitimize' and gain US support for its invasion of China's territory

In January 2013, after the Philippines submitted the South China Sea dispute to the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, China made it clear that in accordance with the Convention it would neither accept nor participate in international arbitration. However, regardless of Beijing's opposition, Manila insisted in pushing forward its bid for international arbitration on the dispute.

On March 30, 2014, the Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario made a statement announcing the country had officially filed a case against China on the South China Sea dispute with the international arbitration tribunal, requesting the tribunal uphold the country's right to exploit waters within a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone and proclaim China is violating international law with its sovereignty claims in the South China Sea.

By pushing for the arbitration, the Philippines is attempting to cover up the fact that it has encroached on China's isles and reefs in the South China Sea and seeking to "legalize" its invasion of China's territory.

China was the first to discover Huangyan Island, name it, incorporate it into its territory and exercise jurisdiction over it. China has ample historical evidence and a legal basis for its sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters.

Although Japan occupied parts of the isles and reefs during World War II, China recovered the Nansha Islands in 1946 and adopted a series of measures to identify and reiterate its sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. At that time, the Philippines, which had gained independence, did not raise any objection to China's sovereignty claims. In the 1970s, the Philippines started to make territorial claims on certain islands and reefs of China's Nansha Islands and sent troops to invade some of these islands, severely violating the Charter of the United Nations and international norms. In the 1990s, the Philippines advanced its territorial claim over Huangyan Island because it is closest to the Philippines.

By insisting on submitting the dispute to the arbitration tribunal the Philippines is also attempting to gain more support from the United States. Since announcing its Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy, the US has been increasing its input in the western Pacific region. But the Philippines believes it has failed to gain the due attention and support corresponding to its status as one of the US' allies in the region, and that unless the US pays enough attention to the dispute, it will be difficult for the Philippines to contend against China in the South China Sea.

Since June 2011, the Philippines has repeatedly asked the US to explicitly include the disputed waters in the South China Sea into the defense area under the Philippines-US Mutual Defense Treaty. However, the US has been loath to give a definite reply. Manila believes that only by provoking China can its position in the US' Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy be strengthened and it acquire more US muscle to counter China in the South China Sea. The purpose of the Philippines choosing to file a formal plea to an international tribunal on the dispute on the eve of US President Barack Obama's April visit to the country is to build itself up in the US' Asia-Pacific strategy.

The act of the Philippines has three major fallacies. First of all, no matter how the Philippines tries to beautify the content of arbitration, the core of South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines is that the Philippines illegally occupied some isles of China's Nansha Islands.

Second, the Philippines' plea for arbitration is based on the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. But the Convention is not applicable to the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines, which is about the sovereignty of part of the isles of the Nansha Islands.

Third, the Convention stipulates that over disputes concerning maritime delimitation and historical rights, contracting states can refuse to accept international judicial or arbitration jurisdiction as long as they make a statement in advance. Currently, there are 34 countries that have made a statement according to the provision. China made a statement in 2006, noting that disputes such as those over ocean boundaries and historical rights are not subject to the Convention's compulsory dispute settlement mechanism.