BEIJING, May 30 (Xinhua) -- Since when did the international community judge disputes based on the one-sided rhetoric of the so-called weaker side instead of the rights and wrongs?
Many outsiders take for granted that the Philippines filed the South China Sea dispute case with the arbitral tribunal in The Hague because it was being bullied by China.
It is understandable for the Philippines to entertain the idea that it, having less power and leverage, could not negotiate a most desirable deal out of the dispute with China bilaterally. But just because the Philippines is smaller and weaker than China does not necessarily make its claims valid.
First and foremost, by unilaterally initiating the arbitration, the Philippines not only abandoned the "Pacta sunt servanda" principle in international law, which means "agreements must be kept," but also violated China's right as a State Party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to seek a dispute settlement means of its own choice.
Accusing China of not respecting the tribunal, the Philippines has never explained why it brought the case to The Hague in 2012 when it still had an agreement to honor with China -- both countries had undertaken to resolve disputes through negotiations.
Then we come to the abuse of power by the arbitral tribunal, which doesn't even have the right to hear the case and exercise jurisdiction.
In essence, the Philippines' requests are about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, which are subject to general international law, not the UNCLOS. And China already made a declaration on optional exceptions in 2006 in accordance with the UNCLOS, which excluded disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, as well as military and law enforcement activities from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in the convention.
Read the full story at Xinhua