{"id":76419,"date":"2016-07-18T12:00:44","date_gmt":"2016-07-18T11:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=76419"},"modified":"2016-07-16T15:09:59","modified_gmt":"2016-07-16T14:09:59","slug":"chinas-bad-day-in-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2016\/07\/chinas-bad-day-in-court\/","title":{"rendered":"China\u2019s Bad Day in Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"GurtovMel\"<\/a>As had been widely expected, the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ruled<\/a> on July 12, 2016 in favor of the Philippines\u2019 suit to declare Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea (SCS) illegal.\u00a0 On every particular, the court found that China\u2019s claims\u2014defined by the so-called \u201cnine-dash line\u201d\u2014 to an expansive maritime zone and its undersea resources are illegal, and therefore that its land reclamation and construction projects in the islands encroach on the Philippines\u2019 exclusive economic zone.\u00a0 Though the ruling did not extend to the issue of sovereignty over the SCS islands, it clarified the boundary dispute.\u00a0 The ruling also found China guilty of harming the marine environment by building artificial islands, of illegally interfering with Filipinos\u2019 fishing \u00a0and oil exploration, and \u201caggravating\u201d the dispute with the Philippines by its construction activities.<\/p>\n

China had determined its response many months ago.\u00a0 The foreign ministry declared the arbitration court\u2019s decision \u201cnull and void and without binding force.\u201d \u00a0The statement repeated China\u2019s sovereignty claims over the SCS islands.\u00a0 It asserted that China\u2019s stance is consistent with international law, a view that hardly squares with its denial of the arbitration court\u2019s jurisdiction, much less its decision.\u00a0 China is committed to direct negotiations with the interested parties and to peaceful settlement of disputes, the statement says; but \u201cregarding territorial issues and maritime delimitation disputes, China does not accept any means of third party dispute settlement or any solution imposed on China.\u201d<\/p>\n

In all, it was a bad day in court for the People\u2019s Republic.\u00a0 Though it promises not to abide by the ruling, meaning China will continue to militarize the disputed islands and defend its \u201ccore interests\u201d there\u2014its navy held its first live-fire exercises in the SCS the day before the court\u2019s decision\u2014the spotlight is on China\u2019s claim to be a \u201cresponsible great power.\u201d\u00a0 President Xi Jinping had indicated in 2014 that China needed to have \u201cits own great-power foreign policy with special characteristics,\u201d which he called \u201csix persistents\u201d (liuge jianchi<\/em>).\u00a0 These principles supposedly would create a \u201cnew type of international relations,\u201d and included ideas such as \u201ccooperation and win-win,\u201d a major voice for developing countries, and defense of international justice.\u00a0 But the six persistents also included \u201cnever abandoning our legitimate rights and interests\u201d (zhengdang quanyi<\/em>), which all too often is pretext<\/a> for acting in ways directly opposed to international responsibility.<\/p>\n

China\u2019s leaders surely expected that signing and ratifying the UNCLOS would be advantageous to the country.\u00a0 It would demonstrate China\u2019s commitment to international agreements, show China\u2019s respect for the maritime rights of others (especially its Southeast Asia neighbors) as well as legitimize its own rights, and facilitate undersea exploration for resources.\u00a0 But agreements don\u2019t always turn out as expected.\u00a0 Now that the law has turned against it, the Chinese suddenly seek to disqualify the UNCLOS court and reinterpret the convention\u2019s intent.\u00a0 Not many governments are likely to support such backsliding.<\/p>\n

The US, though having always supported the Philippines\u2019 position, has nothing to cheer about here.\u00a0 First, the US has neither signed nor ratified the UNCLOS, and thus is in a weak position to argue on its behalf or appeal to international law and a \u201crules-based system\u2019 when governments violate either (such as Russia\u2019s seizure of Crimea).\u00a0 Second, like China, the US has always taken a dim view of international law when \u201cnational interests\u201d are at stake.\u00a0 Whether with regard to the International Court of Justice or any other international court, the US has never accepted the idea of compulsory jurisdiction, and in fact has often behaved as though it is exempt <\/em>from laws and rules.\u00a0 Thus, also like China, US responsibility as a great power does not consistently embrace<\/a> respect for and adherence to international treaties and conventions, international legal bodies (such as the International Criminal Court), or international legal norms (such as those regarding nonintervention, genocide, and torture).\u00a0Both the US and China, in a word, talk the talk but don\u2019t walk the walk\u2014unless law serves its policy.<\/p>\n

And that is the real lesson here\u2014the irresponsibility of great powers, their self-serving approach to international law, and the limited capacity of legal institutions to constrain their behavior.\u00a0 Perhaps in the SCS case China and the Philippines, now under a new president, will find their way back to the negotiating table and work out a deal<\/a> that skirts the always-difficult sovereignty issue. That would be fine; but it would not address the fundamental problem of how law-abiding behavior can be promoted and enforced in an often anarchic world.<\/p>\n

____________________________________<\/p>\n

Mel Gurtov, syndicated by <\/em>PeaceVoice<\/em><\/a>, is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and blogs at <\/em>In the Human Interest<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Perhaps in the South China Sea case China and the Philippines, now under a new president, will find their way back to the negotiating table and work out a deal that skirts the always-difficult sovereignty issue. That would be fine; but it would not address the fundamental problem of how law-abiding behavior can be promoted and enforced in an often anarchic world.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[180],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-brics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76419","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76419"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76419\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}