The world has a stake in ensuring peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific thus rival claimants should not "up the ante" following the outcome of an imminent ruling from the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
"No nation wants to see competition for dominance in Asia descend into an armed conflict or even a period of tension in the South China Sea," former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr told Xinhua.
Carr, now director of the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), urged cooler heads too undertake "calm reflection" after the tribunal delivers its decision "what ever that decision is."
"We've all got a stake in a region with stability and peace," Carr said.
"America has got to be very careful. If America keeps increasing its military investment in the region, then the question going to be asked of America: what next?"
As such, Carr suggests both China and the United States come together to develop a plan for more detailed communication in the event of any misunderstanding, miscalculation or "any accident."
"Both sides have got too much at stake," Carr said. "We've got to give the U.S. and China plenty of off-ramps, so that if there is a misunderstanding, there is an accident, then there's plenty of time for consideration and for mutual restraint and withdrawal."
There also must be exploration to come up with solutions to the regional disputes, just as a proposed joint development of some of the disputed territories.
"The economic growth of Asia has been a great piece of good news for the entire world, (but) it would be placed at risk by armed conflict in the South China Sea," Carr said.
"There's nothing that can't be, first of all managed well, and second, subject to negotiations toward a solution."
The former Australian top diplomat believed it would be viewed in China as hypocritical for Western countries, such as both the United States and Australia, to pressure China into follow the liberal rules-based order, when they themselves have not when it has been against their own interests.
"There's no reference to the rules-based order when America saw it as being vitally important to its interests, and very very urgent, to invade Iraq (in 2003) without a resolution of the UN Security Council," Carr said.
"The West elevates the liberal rules-based order when it suits it," he said.
