The arbitral tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration is nothing but a puppet tribunal established at the unilateral request of the former Philippine government, and its so-called "award" by no means represents international law.
To the arbitral tribunal's great embarrassment, on July 13, the United Nations declared that it has nothing to do with this makeshift panel, and then the International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ) said they are two totally different organizations.
After the award was issued on July 12, some Western countries such as the United States and Japan were eager to urge China to "comply with the obligation under the award," saying "China must abide by international law."
However, the question is: Can this arbitral tribunal and its award represent international law?
Clearly, the answer is definitely no.
First, the arbitral tribunal doesn't even have a solid standing. Though it operates in The Hague, it has nothing to do with the ICJ, a principal judicial organ of the United Nations, nor does it belong to the system of The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The arbitral tribunal is just a paper tiger consisting of five judges tasked with processing the Philippines' unilaterally initiated South China Sea case.
Under the practice of international law, this type of arbitral tribunal needs full consent of parties concerned to be set up and operate. Yet the one in the South China Sea arbitration hasn't been approved by China from its inception, thus the organization is invalid.
Second, the arbitral tribunal is biased regarding the selection of arbitrators. Among the five arbitrators, one was appointed by the Philippines, and all four others were appointed by Shunji Yanai.
Yanai has helped Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe lift the ban on Japan's collective self-defense right and challenge the post-WWII international order. Yanai's political leanings rules out the possibility of a fair judgement.
Under such circumstances, it's only natural to believe that the five arbitrators shared similar views with those who had appointed them or were inclined to be influenced by those who had appointed them. In that case, where is justice in this arbitration?
Third, in this arbitration, money was involved. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin pointed out that the five arbitrators were paid by the Philippines, and possibly even by others to take on the case.
The Philippines was even "generous" enough to offer to pay for China, and the arbitral tribunal gladly accepted the money.
Not surprisingly, the tribunal reciprocated the Philippines' "nice gesture" by giving it a favorable ruling.
A few years ago, Dutch professor Alfred Soons published his opinion at least twice, saying that the status of islands was closely associated with demarcation and sovereignty issues. Yet when serving as an arbitrator in Yanai's team, Soons completely reversed his stance.
Judging by its standing, arbitrator selection and paid service, the arbitral tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration is clearly nothing but a mere puppet tribunal and is a joke in legal history.
