By Shannon Tiezzi
The Philippines and China have conflicting opinions on the symbolism of the case itself.
Today marked the end of the first oral arguments in the Philippines’ arbitration case regarding Chinese actions in the South China Sea. From July 7 -13 ,the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague held a hearing on the question of jurisdiction, a response to China’s claims (expressed obliquely, in a publicly-released position paper) that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve the case, as it cannot judge on issues of sovereignty. The tribunal expects to make a decision on the issue of jurisdiction by the end of the year. If it dismisses concerns about jurisdiction, the tribunal will only then begin to hear the meat of the Philippines’ argument regarding the validity of China’s nine-dash line and the question of the status of certain maritime features in the South China Sea.
Though this hearing was nominally limited to the question of jurisdiction, statements from the Philippines went beyond that narrow scope to get at the meaning of the case as a whole. As one might expect, Manila and Beijing have opposing views on the purpose and utility of arbitration, and that opposition sets them up for a showdown when the court makes its final decision.
Manila claims that this arbitration is a test case for the utility of international law itself. In a statement made before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario sought to answer the question of why the Philippines brought the case. Del Rosario argued that the case is important not only for the Philippines, but for “the rule of law in international relations” in general, particularly as pertains to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is the dispute resolution mechanisms provided for in UNCLOS, del Rosario said, “that allow the weak to challenge the powerful on an equal footing, confident in the conviction that principles trump power; that law triumphs over force; and that right prevails over might.” According to that argument, if the dispute resolution process – in this case, the resort to independent arbitration – fails, it is tantamount to a win for those who argue “might is right” in international relations.
Read the full story at The Diplomat