Can a commercial tribunal rule over nation states and its judgment be binding against the objection of nation states?
Australia, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States beware: A number of the islands you claim as your islands may not be islands at all in the legal sense, because the South China Sea arbitral tribunal in The Hague takes them as just “rocks”!
The long awaited, though illegal, ruling of the Arbitration Panel of the Permanent Court is out finally. In response, the Chinese government has issued a strong statement reiterating China’s position that it will defend its territorial integrity in the South China Sea.
The South China Sea has been an inalienable part of Chinese territory historically. China has the clear and undeniable historical evidence to back its position in the South China Sea, which is the most important legal ground for a country's territorial claim according to international law.
The maritime disputes have nothing to do with the US, and there is no single case in which freedom of navigation has been impeded in anyway.
Recently, the Philippines called for international arbitration to resolve the conflict, which will be launched soon. However, China unequivocally declined to take part in it, labeling the event as illegitimate and against the previous agreement between China and the Philippines, which articulated the fact that disputes, including the South China Sea conflict, will be resolved through bilateral negotiation and through constructive dialogue between the two neighboring nations.
China-Indonesia relations have been in the news since Indonesian navy ships fired warning shots at Chinese fishing boats in a disputed fishing ground in the South China Sea on June 17.
Without the consent of China, a party to a territorial dispute, the decision of the Court is meaningless, illegal and irrelevant. It has no legal status and is not binding.