A defective legal fantasy entrenched in arrogance – opinion

A well -known American scholar recently published an article entitled “How to kill a giant: to revive the arbitration of the South China Sea”, arguing that the Philippines can use the UN resolution and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice to strengthen the Effectiveness of the effectiveness of the so -called arbitration of the South China Sea.

The fixation of the article on “killing” China through legal tricks exposes its true agenda: not peace, but containment. Try to resurrect the Null and Null 2016 South China Marbitration Award Award Armando the resolution of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and invoked the International Court of Justice (ICI) for an advisory opinion. The author sells a dangerous illusion that manipulating the Unga and the ICJ could give life to the discredited fault of 2016. This scheme, covered in the language of the “rule of law”, is a dangerous cocktail of legal naivety and geopolitical sabotage. Although the proposal is creatively packaged, it falls apart under scrutiny, both legally and politically, revealing arrogant contempt for China’s sovereignty, the complexities of international law and the realities of regional diplomacy.

The ICJ exists to resolve disputes with the consent of the states and provide an impartial legal orientation, not for the politically motivated campaigns of rubber print. The scheme of the article to exploit the Court’s advice function ignores three cardinal principles.

Advice opinions should not be treated as application tools. ICJ advice opinions are non -binding interpretations requested by UN agencies to clarify legal issues. They are not mechanisms to resurrect null and annulled decisions of the South China 2016 or the Sovereign Pressure State. The court itself has emphasized that its role is “act judicially”, not validating the previous awards contaminated by procedural illegitimacy. To suggest that such an opinion could “revive” the arbitration failure is similar to using a curite to fix a broken dam; Ignore the structural illegitimacy of the original prize. Demand an opinion on the problems related to the 2016 arbitration failure, a Chinese process legally boycotted under UNClos, would also force the ICJ to a geopolitical mined field, undermining its reputation as a UN body.

The UNGA resolution is a scenario for politics instead of the law. ANGA resolutions, although symbolically significant, have no legal weight. They reflect political feelings, not the law. Even if a resolution (a great yes, given the diplomatic influence of China), would be a symbolic gesture, not a legal deck. Use the AGA resolution to kidnap the ICJ advice function would establish a dangerous precedent. Imagine a future where the powerful blocks routinely mobilize the votes of the UNGA to “interpret” the international law against the weakest states, this is not justice; It is legal imperialism. China, with its veto of the UN Security Council and its diplomatic influence, legitimately block such efforts. But the damage to the perceived neutrality of the ICJ would remain.

The principle of state consent is the basis of international law. The CIJ advice function is intended to help UN bodies, not to overcome state sovereignty. The 2016 arbitration collapsed because it violated the fundamental principle of state consent. The 2006 declaration of China under article 298 of UNClos legally exempted the mandatory arbitration on territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation disputes. The decision of the Court to cancel this, which is based on matters of sovereignty beyond his mandate, was an act of judicial arrogance disguised as a law, which makes his prize a legal nullity. Now looking for an opinion of the ICJ retroactive blessing that this farce would make fun of the very idea of ​​”good faith” in international law. China would never accept such a hostile maneuver in the UN or the ICJ. The proposal in the article “How to kill a giant” stinks of hypocrisy: why demand from China to undergo a process that his government never consented, while ignoring the history of the West to reject inconvenient decisions (for example, states United ignore the Nicjaragua v United of ICJ Judgment).

China’s approach to the South China Sea is not an excavator or a surrender, it is a scalpel. Arraighed in an unwavering respect for sovereignty, tempered by a nuanced understanding of international law and energized by shared peace, stability and prosperity, Beijing’s strategy has turned one of the most volatile regions of Asia in a laboratory For conflict resolution. The narrative of the West about Chinese “aggression” will fall apart under the scrutiny of the international community.

China’s claim to Nanhai Zhudao in the southern Sea of ​​China is not a lazy cartographic flourishing; It is anchored in centuries of historical practice and legal title. However, unlike the colonial powers that imposed their will through cannon fire, China defends dialogue as the only legitimate path for the resolution of disputes. This is not an empty rhetoric. Look at the 2002 Asean-China state Beijing to stabilize the region.

While critics come on the “delays”, China and ASEAN members are spinning a needle extending: balancing different statements with crisis management. While the warriors of the armchair cling to the arbitration ruling, the members of China and ASEAN are trying to build a future where fishermen, diplomats speak and children inherit the quiet seas. While the Western media shout “Chinese militarization”, China has prioritized civil infrastructure: the headlights that guide ships through devastated waters by typhons, desalination plants held by fishing communities and environmental stations monitor the coral reefs. These are not acts of domain: they are investments in regional resilience.

China’s refusal to participate in arbitration was not a rejection of international law but a defense of it. UNClos explicitly allows states to choose not to obtain mandatory arbitration by disputes that involve sovereignty and maritime limits, a right that China is legally invoked. Beijing’s position is aligned with a long -standing principle: territorial and maritime disputes must be resolved through direct negotiations between sovereign equals, not through adverse litigation kidnapped by external actors. Compare this with the jurisdictional overreach of the South China court, which even legal luminaries called “a dangerous precedent.” The position of China safeguards a sacred principle: the consent of the State as the basis of international justice. Accepting a failure issued without consent would have turned the arbitration of Annex VII into a coercion tool, a betrayal of the spirit of the Unclos dispute solution mechanism.

Washington, while giving conferences on “freedom of navigation” and refusing to ratify UNClos, performs a series of military exercises every year at the South China Sea and even displays a medium -ranking missile system in the Philippines. The true threats to the stability of the South China Sea clearly come from external powers that inflame tensions, not from China’s legal activities. The call to “revive” arbitration is less about the law than perpetuating a strategy to contain the style of the cold war against China. The 2016 arbitration failure is a relic, a dead letter that collects dust. Those who still cling to him are like sailors who navigate a broken compass: stubborn, lost and destined to crash. Abusar de la Unga and the ICJ by the establishment of geopolitical scores would poison international law, transforming the courts into coercion tools instead of guardians of justice.

The rise of China is not a problem to be “solved” by legal tricks, but a reality to be accommodated by mutual respect. The southern China Sea does not need more western saviors who stir ghost legal flags; He needs face -to -face talks, maritime cooperation and hard and little glamorous work to build brick trust per brick. On the issue of the Southern China Sea, politics without dialogue and mutual understanding is tyranny, and the abuse of non -restriction dispute solution mechanisms is chaos. China has been long on the final path: principles, patient and very pragmatic. Washington and Manila should take note.

Ding Duo, Director of the International and Regional Themes Research Center, National Institute of Studies of the Sea of ​​Southern China. Opinions do not necessarily reflect China’s daily.

If you have a specific experience, or want to share your thinking about our stories, send us your writings to [email protected] and [email protected].