Why tribunal's arbitration initiated by the Philippines is against international law

BEIJING - The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague said on Wednesday that a tribunal with widely contested jurisdiction will issue an award on July 12 on the South China Sea case unilaterally initiated by the Philippines.

China does not accept nor is it a participant in the arbitration, and will never recognize the so-called "award," as it is illegal, null and void for the following reasons.

First, "Pacta sunt servanda" - or maintaining agreements - is a basic principle in international law. However, the Philippines' unilaterally initiation of the arbitration violates its agreement with China to resolve any dispute through bilateral negotiations.

On the basis of bilateral agreements and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), China and the Philippines have chosen negotiation as the means to resolve their disputes rather than arbitration.

The Philippines initiation without acquiring China's consent contravenes its international obligations to China.

Second, the unilateral initiation by the Philippines violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The UNCLOS stipulates that nothing impairs the right of states to settle a dispute through means of their own choosing and further procedures will be applied only where no settlement has been reached between parties.

Given the fact that China and the Philippines have made a clear choice to settle their dispute through one-on-one negotiations, third-party settlement procedures are unapplicable.

Third, the Philippines' unilateral act violated the right that China enjoys a party to the UNCLOS to seek dispute settlements of its own choosing, and undermined the UNCLOS' authority and integrity.

Fourth, the Arbitral Tribunal has violated the UNCLOS and abused its power at will by hearing the case and exercising jurisdiction.

Worst of all, the Arbitral Tribunal has heightened tensions between China and the Philippines, affected the stability of regional and international maritime order, and contradicted its purpose of peaceful settlement of international disputes. In the end, it should have no say in the territorial dispute between the two countries.