South China Sea arbitral tribunal sets unhealthy example for international law: experts

China’s non-acceptance and non-recognition of the so-called award rendered by the South China Sea arbitral tribunal is safeguarding the dignity of the international law, a group of veteran experts voiced their support to China, adding that the overstep and expansion of power by the tribunal has set a bad example in the international law field.

Those experts made the statements at a special panel on the South China Sea arbitration case on Saturday in Hong Kong. Over 210 scholars on the international law and the law of sea from more than ten countries and regions, including China, the US, Australia and France were present.

The so-called verdict under political manipulation will surely be cast aside, they reiterated.

Li Shishi, President of Chinese Society of International Law expressed at the seminar that the Chinese government is the first to have exercised consistent, peaceful and effective jurisdiction over the islands in the South China Sea.

China has sufficient historical and legal basis for its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, Li added.

“The problem of the tribunal is whether it’s eligible to deliver a verdict,” said John Anthony Carty, a professor with Tsinghua University.

The tribunal has abused the United Nations on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) by actually demarcating the territory of the South China Sea, he pointed out. “Many international law experts and lawyers believe this is in fact a ‘game of law’,” Carty noted.

Law professor Sienho Yee of Wuhan University said that the tribunal neglects many crucial evidences, such as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea signed between China and ASEAN countries in 2002 and multiple other bilateral as well as multi-lateral agreements.

“These agreements stipulate that bilateral negotiation is the only way to settle disputes, but the tribunal failed to adopt such consensus,” Yee emphasized.

He added that the tribunal also failed to regard the Nansha Islands composed of territorial waters, exclusive economic zone and continent shelf as a single unit for sovereignty, maritime rights and delimitation purposes. Such practice is unorthodox, Yee noted.

Carty also believed that the provisional tribunal has disregarded the UNCLOS and overstepped its power by putting forward judgment criteria on the status of islands and reefs.

He challenged the tribunal’s conclusion on Nansha islands that “none of the islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones.”

“It’s absurd. If that is the case, does such criteria also apply to any of the uninhabited islands and reefs of Japan?” Carty stressed.

Abdul Gadire Koroma, former judge of the International Court of Justice told the People’s Daily that the so-called South China Sea arbitration case is highly-controversial and contradicts the international law on many aspects. Koroma also believes that historical rights can affirm territorial sovereignty.

Carty told People’s Daily that the results of the so-called arbitration have no meaning on the South China Sea issue. Bilateral negotiation is the only effective channel to resolve the issue. The arbitration has set a bad example in the international law society.

Stefan Talmon from University of Bonn concurred Carty’s opinions, saying that due to lack of jurisdiction, the arbitral tribunal contribute nothing to the settlement of the issue. “Its so-called verdict will even cause negative impacts,” Talmon emphasized.