More than 30 international law experts gathered recently at The Hague in the Netherlands for a symposium on the Philippines-proposed arbitration on the South China Sea issue along with its possible influence on the international legal system. The following is the consensus reached by international experts, including those from China, on the four topics.

An aerial photo taken on Sept. 25, 2015 from a seaplane of Hainan Maritime Safety Administration shows cruise vessel Haixun 1103 heading to the Yacheng 13-1 drilling rig during a patrol in South China Sea. [Photo/Xinhua]

On the first topic, "the relation between the arbitration case and the international law," the experts thought that the arbitration case violated many principles of international law.

For example, the arbitration tribunal failed to clarify or identify the disputes between China and the Philippines in its ruling on jurisdiction, the composition of the arbitration tribunal failed to represent major civilizations or legal systems, the arbitration tribunal was totally funded by the Philippines, the arbitration process was carried out at a stunning speed, the ruling on the jurisdiction failed to give full consideration of China's claims although it ostensibly noticed them, the arbitration tribunal failed to complete the necessary legal analyses and it did not respect the principle of legal consistency in that some arbitrators altered positions without giving explanation.

These facts permeated the international legal society with the fear that the arbitration case may damage international law.

On the second topic, "case study on similar international cases that involved parties do not appear in, or participate in the court trial," the experts acknowledged that there were already 14 such examples, and the absence of both China and the Philippines in the tribunal should not incite surprise. However, under such circumstances, international courts, especially the International Court of Justice, would assume a very precautious attitude and treat the two sides fairly. By contrast, the tribunal court failed to fulfil its due diligence.

On the third topic, "historical sovereignty and historical rights," the experts believed that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) does not bluntly deny all historical sovereignty or historical rights, so that the claim on the two issues could be legitimate. However, the arbitration tribunal failed to respect the historical fact and vaguely expressed its opinion, which in itself was a violation of international legal principles.

On the fourth topic, "the relations between the UNCLOS's interpretations and international laws," the experts believed that the arbitration tribunal purposefully confused its explanation on expanding its jurisdiction and distorted the text of UNCLOS. Such acts were damages to the total validity and impartiality of the international legal system. The experts urged the tribunal to fully respect the limitations of jurisdiction as stipulated by UNCLOS, and fully and seriously consider the exclusion with which China implements UNCLOS.

Among the experts, Yi Xianhe, chief expert of the China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies at Wuhan University, said the symposium attended by renowned experts of international law was helpful to clarify vague ideas and correct misconceptions.

"The arbitration tribunal damages the impartiality of the international legal system," said Yi, who urged the arbitrators to notice the reasonable conclusions reached at the symposium. He urged people to realize that disputes would eventually be settled through peaceful negotiations.

Related

• South China Sea arbitration to set 'serious, wrong and bad example'
• Syrian politicians stress China's right over South China Sea

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)