It’s a truly bracing moment for the Philippines to be adjudged correct in its stance vis-à-vis the South China Sea. It must now seize this “overwhelming victory,” in the words of its chief counsel, to consolidate support, nurture alliances, and strengthen old relationships —including with China in the future—on the basis of its stance that was unanimously upheld on Tuesday by the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.
In its ruling on the landmark case filed by the Aquino administration in January 2013, the arbitral court “cut the legal heart out of China’s claim that the sea is, in effect, a Chinese lake,” writes Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia, in a commentary. The Philippines’ submissions, along with its protests against China’s incursions into its exclusive economic zone, and its consistent demand that not only its jurisdiction over its EEZ be respected under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, but also that provocative and bullying behavior in the disputed area be stopped, show the way for other nations with claims on this important waterway. The Philippines has made an outstanding example of itself. For standing on principle and consistently invoking international law, the Philippines is in an excellent position to call on China and other claimants to abide by the arbitral court’s ruling and, most important, to bring about a just and peaceful resolution to the conflicting claims.
China has, of course, rejected the arbitral court’s ruling and assailed the Philippines for “[stirring] up the trouble.” It’s a predictable response which is of a piece with the strident rhetoric that has characterized China’s refusal to participate in the arbitration, on the contention that the court had no jurisdiction in the case. Yet China was furnished copies of all the filings and orders despite its boycott, and indeed was present in all but form—in an apparently commissioned book that could well have served as its pleading, in what the arbitral court itself lamented as ex parte communication.
What points comprise the Philippines’ victory? Most significantly, the arbitral court rejected China’s “nine-dash line” that supposedly backs its “historic rights” to almost the entire South China Sea. The court also: declared that none of China’s constructions in the Spratlys qualifies as an “island” that generates its own EEZ; condemned China’s “unlawful actions” (such as “interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration” and “failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing” in Philippine waters), and causing serious risk of collision when Chinese vessels “physically obstructed Philippine vessels.”
And one major point: The arbitral court said China violated international law through its large-scale land reclamation to build artificial islands (such as on Mischief Reef, where it constructed, among others, a military airstrip), causing in the process “severe harm to the coral reef environment.” It likewise noted that China did not prevent its fishermen from harvesting endangered species and destroying “fragile ecosystems.” This last item is nothing strange: There have been many instances when the Coast Guard intercepted Chinese vessels bearing sea turtles, giant clams, and corals illegally taken from the world-famous trove of marine diversity in Philippine waters.
From any angle, it’s sweet victory for the Philippines. The case was filed under the initiative of then President Benigno Aquino III and Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario after China assumed practical possession of Scarborough Shoal 230 kilometers off Zambales, where generations of Filipinos have fished, and was nurtured “with an iron will to do what is right amid adversity,” in the words of former Philippine ambassador to the United States Jose Cuisia.
The Philippines enjoys wide international support on this matter. It should consolidate with its allies and rally the members of Asean to the cause of reducing tensions in the region and peacefully resolving disputes. There will be time for diplomacy to work. Even China has not closed the door on the possibility of negotiations.