Zhao Qizheng, former minister of China’s State Council Information Office, speaks at the Think Tank Seminar on South China Sea and Regional Cooperation and Development held on July 18 in Singapore.

 

Asian people are wise enough to resolve disputes in the South China Sea by themselves through dialogue, said Fan Jishe, director of the Department of American Politics at the Institute of American Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).

Fan shared his views with around 30 scholars from China, Indonesia, Malaysia and other countries during the “Think Tank Seminar on the South China Sea and Regional Cooperation and Development” held in Singapore on July 18, which was dedicated to discussing ways to settle disputes in the South China Sea, as well as overall regional cooperation and development.

Some serious mistakes were made during a tribunal’s arbitration of a claim unilaterally made by the Philippines with regard to procedure, application of the law and admission of evidence, said Zhao Qizheng, dean of the School of Journalism at Renmin University of China. The tribunal’s assertion of jurisdiction over the case oversteps its legal authority and represents a  total disregard for basic historical facts and principles of international law, Zhao said. These disputes should be settled through bilateral negotiations and consultations between the nations involved, he said.
 

Zheng Yongnian, director of the East Asia Institute at National University of Singapore, pointed out that the South China Sea issue has always been a political issue rather than a simple legal matter. Since China and the Philippines have signed many political agreements, both sides are wise enough to solve disputes through negotiation, he said.
 

Li Guoqiang, deputy director of the Institute of Chinese Borderland Studies at CASS, said, “An abundance of historical materials collected over the course of more than two millennia has proven that China was the first to discover, name, develop and peacefully utilize the islands and waters in the South China Sea,” he added. Lacking any basic professional ethics, the arbitrators have rendered an absurd conclusion, Li said.
 

Yee Sienho, chief expert of the China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies at Wuhan University, said the tribunal failed to consider and respect the limitations imposed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and China’s explicit right under the convention to exclude disputes concerning maritime delimitation and historic titles, he said, adding that it is a dangerous exercise for the effectiveness and legitimacy of the international legal system, international rule of law and the world order.
 

Zhang Junshe, a research fellow from the Naval Military Studies Research Institute of the People’s Liberation Army, said that disputes about sovereignty over certain islands and reefs and the dispute concerning the delineation of territorial waters are the two major issues in South China Sea disputes. The former does not fall under the jurisdiction of UNCLOS, while the latter was explicitly excluded during China’s accession to the convention in 2006 in a written declaration according to Article 298 of the UNCLOS of 1982. It is clear that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over these disputes, but it has turned a blind eye to this, he said.
 

“We must stay vigilant and clear-minded so as to not fall into the trap that is this geopolitical game,” said Vannarith Chheang, co-founder and chairman of the Cambodian Institute for Strategic Studies, adding that Cambodia will not allow the arbitration results to damage China-ASEAN ties.

China has proposed and promoted a series of partnerships with ASEAN states, and it is beneficial for all the peoples in this region. After the clamor around the arbitration case settles down, concerned states will eventually realize that life will go on, said Wang Yuzhu, director of the Centre for APEC and East-Asia Cooperation at CASS.