Hague court takes up Philippines dispute in South China Sea

In a blow to China, the tribunal agreed to hear a case in which the Philippines has challenged China's broad claims over disputed areas of the South China Sea. 

Ritchie B. Tongo/REUTERS/File
An aerial photo taken through a glass window of a Philippine military plane shows the alleged ongoing land reclamation by China on Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, west of Palawan, Philippines, in this May 11, 2015 file photo.

An international tribunal at The Hague will take on a case between China and the Philippines over disputed territory in South China Sea, the first time China has had to face legal scrutiny over its assertiveness in the resource-rich waterway.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued the ruling Thursday, despite China's objections that the tribunal has little authority to review such a case. Chinese officials say they will not participate, preferring to settle matters on a one-on-one basis, an approach many analysts say gives China greater clout over its smaller neighbors. 

"The attempts to attain more illegal interests by initiating arbitration unilaterally is impractical and will lead nowhere," said Zhu Haiquan, spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington. "China is committed to resolving relevant disputes through negotiation and consultation with parties directly involved. This is the only right choice."

China asserts sovereignty over much of the South China Sea, and dismisses territorial claims in the area by the Philippines as well as Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei.

In the case, filed in 2013, the Philippines argues that China's broad claims "do not conform with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and should be declared invalid. The Philippines also asserts that some Chinese-occupied reefs and shoals do not generate, or create a claim to, territorial waters."

The Hague court indicated that it did not need China's participation to continue with the trial because both because both China and the Philippines are signatories of UNCLOS (the US has not signed the convention.) It said it expected to reach a decision next year. The case is being closely watched by the United States, a Philippines treaty ally. 

The US drew Chinese ire Tuesday when it sailed the USS Lassen, a guided missile destroyer, within 12 nautical miles of reefs that China has built into islands and over which it claims sovereignty, Reuters reports. 

The US says that it was sailing through international waters, stressing that its naval exercises were meant to "protect the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations under international law," CNN cited a US Navy spokesman as saying.  US officials said it would be the first of regular "freedom of navigation" patrols in the area.

In a videoconference two days after the sail-by, China's naval commander told his US counterpart that a minor incident could spark war in the South China Sea if the United States did not stop.

"If the United States continues with these kinds of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war," China's Navy Chief Admiral Wu Shengli was quoted as saying in a statement released by China.

Despite the dispute, the US and China have agreed to proceed with scheduled naval port visits and diplomatic exchanges. Nonetheless, The New York Times reports China will continue seeking out ways to edge out the US from the South China Sea:

...But there is little doubt that China is thinking big about how these islands could limit America’s military options, about how control over these waters could give it leverage over key trade routes and about how making the United States look hapless could strengthen its diplomatic clout in the region.

“They have a game plan; it is very clear what it is,” said Christopher K. Johnson, senior adviser on China at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington at a recent seminar. “Sometimes, I think it is easy to get lost in the weeds on what has been built on which island.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.