Hague Tribunal's South China Sea verdict will have no impact on Beijing

An arbitration court in The Hague on Tuesday has ruled against China on a maritime dispute between it and the Philippines. Both countries have been at loggerheads over Beijing’s claim of sovereignty over the South China Sea. However, regardless of the verdict, China has declared that the verdict would be “nothing but a piece of paper,” according to a piece in The Global Times. Manila took the case to the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2013. China has however, refused to participate in the case and has boycotted the hearings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. [caption id=“attachment_2888510” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] An aerial photo shows Thitu Island, part of the disputed Spratly group of islands, in the South China Sea. AFP[/caption] Beijing does not recognise the arbitration court in spite of the US and Japan claiming that every country should comply with the result. Although the ruling is binding, the tribunal has no powers of enforcement, according to BBC. China has therefore, declined to conform with the verdict, saying it does not have jurisdiction to decide on the matter. 90 percent of the South China Sea is claimed by Beijing and appears on its maps. China asserts sovereignty over maritime areas that span almost 3.5 m square kilometres but are also claimed by Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Japan, according to The Guardian. The South China Sea is thought to have significant oil and gas reserves and President Xi Jinping has vowed to “resolutely defend” Beijing’s interest. The Guardian quoted Bonnie Glaser, the director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think-tank in Washington as saying that any ruling that questioned Beijing’s claim on the South China Sea will only “limit the amount of water that the Chinese could have any legal sovereignty claim to.” Despite the result, China has already said that it will not “accept, recognise or execute” the decision and has boycotted the tribunal, according to BBC. However, it is also being argued that if China ignores international law, it would risk reputational damage. It might also escalate the tension between China and Philippines. Beijing has been trying to gather international support for its stand that the Tribunal’s ruling should be rejected. According to the Chinese government, 60 countries already support its claims but none has declared their support publicly. China Central Television has claimed that “China has indisputable sovereignty over South China sea islands and the adjacent waters.” The editor’s note reads as “China was the first country to discover, name and exploit the resources of the South China Sea islands. China was also the first country that exercised and has continuously exercised sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the islands.” The Chinese Foreign Ministry has reiterated that the arbitration is illegal. Its spokesperson Lu Kang told CCTV, “First, the arbitration violates the relevant clauses of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. These complaints do not fall within the jurisdiction of Law of the Sea. Second, the Philippines has already agreed to resolve disputes through bilateral agreements, but has broke its promises. Since the country has broken both laws and promises, more and more countries, including China, believe the arbitration is illegal.” China’s ambassador to the United Kingdom Liu Xiaoming told Reuters that the decision has “no impact on China, on China’s sovereignty over these reefs, over the islands. And it will set a serious, wrong and bad example. We will not fight this case in court, but we will certainly fight for our sovereignty." Considering that Beijing is vehemently opposed to the Tribunal’s verdict inspite of pressure from the US, it will stand by its decision to boycott it. Despite the verdict of the Tribunal, China is likely to continue its activities in the South China Sea. So is this just a whole lot of noise about nothing? Only time will tell.