UNCLOS a red herring in China-Philippines row

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), under which the Philippines has been seeking international arbitration over its territorial spats with China in the South China Sea, is really a red herring in this case.

As of Monday, the deadline given to Beijing by the arbitral tribunal to submit its counter-memorial, China has repeatedly stated that it will neither accept nor participate in the proceeding which could do nothing to help, but stir bigger waves in the South China Sea.

The proceeding initiated by Manila is actually a farce crammed with ambition and ill intention under the cover of law, leading people with little knowledge of the case to accuse Beijing of not abiding by international law.

China has already excluded, through a declaration made in 2006 pursuant to Article 298 of the UNCLOS, disputes concerning maritime delimitation, inter alia, from the application of arbitration and other compulsory procedures.

In fact, neither China nor the Philippines ratified the UNCLOS in full. Few signatories to the UNCLOS approved it without some sorts of qualifying statements and reservations.

Furthermore, the essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the UNCLOS.

It is best that specific disputes are solved through negotiations and consultations by countries directly concerned. The rationality of the "dual-track approach" proposed by China has been acknowledged by claimants involved in the South China Sea disputes.

However Manila, by pushing forward with the arbitral proceeding despite strong objection from Beijing, has been acting like a crying baby. It may arouse some attention for the time being, but could cause endless legal and diplomatic wrangling, thus complicating the otherwise improving situation in the South China Sea.

Beijing and Manila have once agreed, through bilateral instruments, to settle their disputes through negotiations to the exclusion of all other means. Now by unilaterally initiating the arbitration, Manila has breached its obligation under international law.

By breaking its promises, the Philippines has dampened the benign momentum in the development of bilateral relations with China, which had been on a right track of negotiations and cooperation.

The Philippines should act in a more rational and sensible manner as there has been a growing economic interdependence of countries around the South China Sea. Interests of all these countries would be at stake if diplomatic standoffs intensified. It would be Manila's fault if it sticks to its unilateral moves against China which, as a responsible player, has been striving for a peaceful settlement of the issue.

Through negotiations, China has settled its land boundary with almost all of its neighbors and has delimited its maritime boundary in Beibu Bay with Vietnam.

Such facts have proven that the existence of differences is nothing to be afraid of. As long as relevant countries have the goodwill and engage in friendly consultations and negotiations on an equal footing, they can enhance mutual trust, expand common understanding and gradually and properly settle disputes.

Thus, it is advisable that the Philippines return as soon as possible to the right track of negotiation with a more sincere spirit instead of playing legal games and trying to distract form the real work that needs to be done.

In principle, China, like any other country in the world, will not give up an inch of its territory. In reality, it is willing to cooperate with others to manage resources and protect free navigation in the South China Sea, which benefits not only individual countries, but also the region as a whole.