When an international court ruled in late October that it had jurisdiction to hear a case filed by the Philippines against China over the disputed South China Sea, Beijing dismissed the decision, saying it would “lead to nothing.”
Philippine officials, as well as some foreign diplomats and experts, disagree, saying China could come under intensified diplomatic and legal pressure if the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ultimately decides in favor of Manila.
Legal experts say Manila has a significant chance of success, citing the court’s detailed rejection of China’s arguments in the hearing on jurisdiction. A final ruling is expected in the middle of next year.
Such a judgement is likely to be a millstone around China’s neck, especially at regional meetings, because it would mark the first time an international court has intervened in the dispute, making it harder for Beijing to ignore, the diplomats and experts said.
Barely noticed when Manila filed the case in 2013 and largely seen as a sideshow since then to the tensions playing out on the waterway itself, some Asian and Western countries have started expressing growing support for the court process.
One expert said that if the ruling went against China on key points, he would expect to see coordinated positions from Western nations that would keep the pressure on Beijing in bilateral meetings and at international forums.
“Other countries will use it as a stick to beat Beijing with. That is why China is so freaked by this whole issue,” said Ian Storey, a South China Sea expert at Singapore’s Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
“That’s the dirty little secret here,” said Bonnie Glaser, a security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “The Chinese have pretended that it’s going to be easy to ignore and reject. I think in reality they will have to pay an international price for it.”
Manila is seeking a ruling on its right to exploit South China Sea waters in its 200-nautical-mile (370.4km) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as allowed under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The treaty does not cover matters of sovereignty, but outlines a system of territory and economic zones that can be claimed from features such as islands, rocks and reefs.
China, which claims virtually all of the South China Sea, has refused to take part and rejects the court’s authority in the case, even though it has ratified the UNCLOS. Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei also claim parts of the waterway.
Any ruling against China would be legally binding, but unenforceable beyond political pressure because there is no body to enforce such rulings, legal experts say.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration declined to comment.
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday last week reiterated that Beijing would not accept any decision imposed on China. It said the case was a “futile attempt to deny China of its territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea.”
Michael Wesley, a professor in international affairs at the Australian National University, said China would not feel bound by any ruling.
“The South China Sea is a classic example of how China thinks about, and is probably succeeding in, rejecting and displacing US primacy in the region, without really risking [major] conflict,” he said.
To many diplomats, the case is key to getting China to accept international legal norms over the waterway, through which US$5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year.
A number of countries have requested to observe the Hague proceedings, including claimants Vietnam and Malaysia as well as Japan, Thailand, Singapore, Australia and the UK.
Washington has backed the court process while during a visit to Beijing in October, German Chancellor Angela Merkel suggested China go to international courts to resolve its rows over the South China Sea.
After talks in Sydney on Nov. 22, the foreign and defense ministers of Australia and Japan said that they supported the right of South China Sea claimants to seek arbitration.
By refusing to take part in the process, China has forgone the opportunity to formally defend its claims, shown on Chinese maps as a nine-dash line stretching into the maritime heart of Southeast Asia.
Manila is challenging the legality of the line, as well as China’s actions within it.
By getting a ruling on its right to exploit waters within its EEZ, Manila hopes to force China to retreat from several shoals and reefs within the zone.
Diplomats and oil industry sources said international energy lawyers would scrutinize the final ruling to see if it clarified rights in contested blocks off the Philippines and Vietnam.
Hanoi made a submission to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in support of Manila’s case, but has not launched its own action against China. The Vietnamese government did not respond to a request for comment.
Indonesia’s security chief last month said that Jakarta could take Beijing to court over the nine-dash line.
In a meeting with Haitian Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Victor Harvel Jean-Baptiste on Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) vowed to continue providing aid to Haiti. Taiwan supports Haiti with development in areas such as agriculture, healthcare and education through initiatives run by the Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF). The nation it has established itself as a responsible, peaceful and innovative actor committed to global cooperation, Jean-Baptiste said. Testimonies such as this give Taiwan a voice in the global community, where it often goes unheard. Taiwan’s reception in Haiti also contrasts with how China has been perceived in countries in the region
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
On April 13, I stood in Nanan (南安), a Bunun village in southern Hualien County’s Jhuosi Township (卓溪), absorbing lessons from elders who spoke of the forest not as backdrop, but as living presence — relational, sacred and full of spirit. I was there with fellow international students from National Dong Hwa University (NDHU) participating in a field trip that would become one of the most powerful educational experiences of my life. Ten days later, a news report in the Taipei Times shattered the spell: “Formosan black bear shot and euthanized in Hualien” (April 23, page 2). A tagged bear, previously released
The world has become less predictable, less rules-based, and more shaped by the impulses of strongmen and short-term dealmaking. Nowhere is this more consequential than in East Asia, where the fate of democratic Taiwan hinges on how global powers manage — or mismanage — tensions with an increasingly assertive China. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has deepened the global uncertainty, with his erratic, highly personalized foreign-policy approach unsettling allies and adversaries alike. Trump appears to treat foreign policy like a reality show. Yet, paradoxically, the global unpredictability may offer Taiwan unexpected deterrence. For China, the risk of provoking the
RSS