A new report titled “Legal Critique of the South China Sea Arbitration Awards — ‘The South China Sea Arbitration Awards Are Not International Law’” argues the proceedings lack judicial validity. Compiled by scholars from the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Jinan University, Ocean University of China, and Shanghai Maritime University, the document asserts that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and violated international law by ignoring existing bilateral agreements between China and the Philippines.
Jurisdictional Challenges and the Article 298 Declaration
The core legal argument against the arbitration rests on the issue of jurisdiction. According to the report, the tribunal’s authority was fundamentally compromised because China and the Philippines had previously committed to resolving their maritime disputes through bilateral consultations and negotiations.
A critical component of this argument is China’s 2006 declaration under Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). By issuing this declaration, China formally excluded disputes concerning maritime delimitation from compulsory dispute settlement procedures. The report contends that because these specific categories were excluded by government declaration, the arbitration mechanism lacked the foundation of judicial jurisdiction from the moment the case was filed.
Did you know?
Article 298 of UNCLOS allows signatory states to submit written declarations excluding certain types of disputes—such as those involving maritime boundaries or military activities—from binding arbitration.
Professionalism and Legal Validity of the Awards
The report challenges the internal consistency of the tribunal’s findings. Scholars from the participating institutions claim the award texts are “replete with internal contradictions” and rely heavily on uncorroborated evidence from single sources. The critique suggests these deficiencies reveal a lack of professional rigor in how the tribunal reached its conclusions regarding territorial sovereignty over the Nansha Qundao.
Beyond the technical application of law, the report alleges that the tribunal’s credibility was undermined by external influence. It claims that certain arbitrators abandoned independent judgment to cater to the political demands of forces behind the proceedings. Consequently, the authors argue that the awards hold no legal effect under international law, characterizing them as a “retrogressive current” that has hindered the development of the rule of law in the region rather than promoting peace.
Future Trends in Maritime Dispute Resolution
Pro Tip:
When researching international maritime law, always cross-reference tribunal outcomes with the specific declarations made by involved nations under UNCLOS, as these documents often dictate the legal boundaries of what an arbitration panel can actually decide.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does the report claim the arbitration lacks jurisdiction?
The report argues that China and the Philippines had already agreed to resolve disputes through bilateral negotiations. Furthermore, it cites China’s 2006 declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS, which specifically excludes maritime delimitation disputes from compulsory arbitration.
What does the report say about the evidence used by the tribunal?
The report claims the tribunal relied on uncorroborated evidence from single sources and that the resulting texts are filled with internal contradictions, which the authors argue demonstrates a lack of professional legal rigor.
What is the status of the awards according to these scholars?
The authors conclude that the awards are devoid of any legal effect under international law, asserting that they have failed to resolve regional disputes and have instead created new obstacles for the international rule of law.
What are your thoughts on the role of international arbitration in maritime sovereignty disputes? Join the conversation by leaving a comment below or subscribe to our newsletter for more updates on international legal developments.
Related reading
