Arbitration Over, Time for China to Lead Responsibly

2015

On 29 October 2015 the Court of Permanent Arbitration (PCA) ruled that it had jurisdiction on the arbitration case launched by the Philippines against China, concerning the South China Sea. It unanimously decided that it had jurisdiction concerning seven of the fifteen claims put forward by Manila, with a further seven to be decided simultaneously with its ruling on the case itself. This follows Beijing’s refusal to join the proceedings, despite issuing a position paper, and prompts the question of how the PRC will react. While still too early to tell for sure, the first moves by the PRC seem to indicate a three-pronged strategy, whereby Beijing insists in denying the court’s jurisdiction, moves forward in the deployment of aircraft in artificial islands, and explores agreements with some of the claimants. The two first pillars are in line with previous practice, while the second has some precedents, such as the 2000 partial delimitation and fisheries agreement with Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin, but may prompt a very different scenario from the one we have seen in the last few years, when Chinese claims have been opposed by other states in the region, the latter careful however not to give any impression they were setting up an informal coalition. This paper examines these three aspects of China’s initial response to the PCA’s ruling.

2008

Article 19 of the Arbitration Law provides that 'the arbitration agreement exists independently, and its validity is not affected by the revision, avoidance, termination or invalidity of the main contract'.

RIVISTA DELL’ARBITRATO, 2020, Fasc. 1, 85-116, ISSN 1122-0147, 2020

Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 2017

IPP Review, 2018

A team of legal experts from the Chinese Society of International Law (CSIL) has just published a major critique of the PCA arbitral award in the Chinese Journal of International Law. Given that the PCA arbitral award is final and cannot be appealed, is there any point to such critiques?

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020

CIMSEC Blog, 2016

This is the final installment in a four-part series devoted to China’s 7 December 2014 document, putting forward her views on the Philippines’ international arbitration case on the South China Sea. Although Beijing is refusing to take part in the proceedings, as confirmed following the Court’s 29 October 2015 ruling on jurisdiction, by issuing this document, and communicating in other ways with the Court, the PRC has failed to completely stay aloof from the case. It is thus interesting to analyze China’s narrative as laid down in that document.

ADR Bulletin, 2001

Asian Politics & Policy, 2018

On 12 July 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal formed under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) issued its award on the case brought by the Philippines against China over maritime claims in the South China Sea. The landmark victory categorically declared that China's nine-dash line claim is incompatible with the UNCLOS. The award was also an authoritative interpretation of various important issues relating to UNCLOS including the legal status of maritime features, historic rights, and the duty to preserve the marine environment. However, despite the final and binding nature of the arbitral ruling, China continues to reject the ruling. The shift in Philippine foreign policy under the Duterte administration has led to setting aside the ruling in order to restore amicable diplomatic and economic relations with China. This Special Issue of Asian Politics & Policy explores and revisits the South China Sea arbitral award from a multi-faceted perspective, focusing on challenges, implications, and post-arbitration strategies.

CIMSEC Blog, 2015

This is the second installment in a four-part series devoted to China’s 7 December 2014 document, putting forward her views on the Philippines’ international arbitration case on the South China Sea. Although Beijing is refusing to take part in the proceedings, as confirmed following the Court’s 29 October 2015 ruling on jurisdiction, by issuing this document, and communicating in other ways with the Court, the PRC has failed to completely stay aloof from the case. It is thus interesting to analyze China’s narrative as laid down in that document.