1. “Illegal, null and void from the outset.” The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS — a treaty China signed and ratified. Article 288(4) is unambiguous: the Tribunal itself decides disputes over its jurisdiction. Article 296 and Annex VII, Article 11 make its decisions final and binding on the parties. China does not get to ratify a convention, enjoy its benefits for decades, then unilaterally exempt itself from its dispute settlement mechanism. That is not law; that is convenience.
2. “The award infringes upon China’s legitimate rights.” The Tribunal found that the nine-dash line has no basis in international law. Rights that never existed cannot be infringed. What the Award protects are the actual, treaty-based entitlements of coastal states — including the Philippines’ EEZ and continental shelf.
3. “Relying on external forces to stir up trouble.” The Philippines went to court, not to war. Arbitration is the peaceful settlement of disputes that the UN Charter and UNCLOS demand. If invoking law is “stirring up trouble,” what do we call ramming, water cannons, military-grade lasers, and swarming a neighbor’s EEZ with hundreds of militia vessels? We call it what it is: illegal, coercive, aggressive, and deceptive.
4. “Harm to the international rule of law.” The rule of law is harmed by exactly one thing here: a party refusing to comply with a final and binding ruling for ten years. More than 40 states and the EU have called for the Award’s respect. The verdict of the international community is not on our compliance — it is on China’s defiance.
The passage of time cannot render an illegal claim legal. Ten years have not legitimized the nine-dash line, and ten more will not. The Award is not “so-called.” It is final, it is binding, and it is the law!
