2013年1月，菲律賓單方面強行就中菲南海爭議提起仲裁。目前，仲裁庭已就管轄權和可受理性問題作出裁定，並完成實體問題和未決的管轄權問題庭審。菲律賓單方面提起仲裁，無視中菲之間已經形成通過談判協商解決爭端的共識和菲在《南海各方行為宣言》（以下簡稱《宣言》）中的鄭重承諾，無視中國作為主權國家和《聯合國海洋法公約》（以下簡稱《公約》）締約國享有的自主選擇爭端解決機制和程序的權利，濫用《公約》強制爭端解決機制，企圖以所謂的《公約》解釋和適用問題來掩蓋中菲爭議的實質是領土和海域劃界爭議，企圖以《公約》來否定《聯合國憲章》尊重他國領土主權完整的義務，混淆視聽，為自己非法侵佔中國南沙群島部分島礁的行為張目，構成對地區和平穩定的嚴重威脅。

一、菲律賓領土擴張行為導致中菲南海爭議

中菲南海有關爭議的核心是20世紀70年代起菲律賓違背《聯合國憲章》陸續非法侵佔我南沙群島部分島礁而引發的領土爭議。

南海諸島自古就是中國領土。歷代中國政府通過行政設制、軍事巡航、生產經營、海難救助等方式持續對南海諸島及相關海域進行管轄。日本在發動全面侵華戰爭後，侵佔了中國西沙、南沙群島。《開羅宣言》和《波茨坦公告》明確規定，日本應歸還竊取的中國領土。抗戰勝利後，中國收復西沙、南沙群島，在島上派兵駐守並建立各類軍事、民事設施，從法律和事實上恢復對南海諸島行使主權。

菲律賓固有領土範圍是由1898年《美西和平條約》、1900年美西《關於菲律賓外圍島嶼割讓的條約》、1930年《關於劃定英屬北婆羅洲與美屬菲律賓之間的邊界條約》明確規定的。南沙群島和黃岩島根本不在上述條約規定的菲律賓版圖內。菲律賓憲法和法律，如1935年菲律賓共和國憲法、1968年菲律賓領海基線（修正）法案，以及1947年美菲一般關係條約，均重申了上述條約所規定的菲律賓領土範圍。

從20世紀70年代初起，菲律賓突破其本國的固有領土，推行領土擴張主義，陸續侵佔中國南沙群島的8個島礁。1978年6月，菲律賓頒佈第1596號總統令，以所謂的“卡拉延島群”的說法對中國南沙群島部分島礁提出非法的領土要求。菲律賓還於2009年修訂領海基線法，悍然將中國南沙群島部分島礁和黃岩島列入其領土範圍，企圖將非法侵佔永久化、合法化。

為了否定中國的中方領土主權和海洋權益，菲律賓通過強化非法建設、挑動事端、油氣勘探、抓扣漁民等不負責任的單方面行為，加劇局勢緊張，推動中菲南海爭議進一步擴大化、複雜化。菲律賓在非法侵佔中國南沙群島部分島礁後，通過擴建島礁、建立軍事設施、建設港口機場、設立行政建制等方式，企圖長期佔據並將非法侵佔“合法化”。菲律賓還通過炸毀中國島礁主權標誌、利用舊軍艦“坐灘”中國仁愛礁等，企圖進一步侵佔中國南沙群島有關島礁。菲律賓單方面在南海爭議海域進行油氣開採和在中國漁民的傳統漁場抓扣、虐待、槍殺中國中方漁民，企圖通過單方面行動將其海洋權益主張強加給中國人民和中國政府。2012年4月10日，菲律賓“德爾·皮拉爾”號軍艦，侵入中國黃岩島海域，武力襲擾在該海域正常作業的中國漁民、漁船，並對中國漁民施以長時間裸身曝晒等嚴重的非人道待遇措施，蓄意挑起“黃岩島事件”。

二、中菲已選擇談判協商這一方式解決南海爭議

中國政府一貫堅持在尊重歷史事實的基礎上，根據國際法，通過談判協商解決領土和海洋權益主張重疊爭議。自20世紀60年代以來，中國通過談判協商已與14個陸地鄰國中的12個解決了邊界問題，劃定邊界長度達約20000公里，佔中國約22000公里陸地邊界的90%。此外，中國和越南通過談判協商劃定了兩國在北部灣的海洋邊界。可以說，這是新中國奉行獨立自主的外交政策及睦鄰友好的周邊外交政策，踐行國際法的最好例證，也是新中國通過談判協商取得的舉世矚目的成就。

通過談判協商和平解決爭議不僅是中方的政策，也是中菲雙邊達成的協議。1995年8月10日《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國關於南海問題和其他領域合作的磋商聯合聲明》、1999年3月23日《中菲建立信任措施工作小組會議聯合公報》、2000年5月16日《中華人民共和國政府和菲律賓共和國政府關於21世紀雙邊合作框架的聯合聲明》、2004年9月3日《中華人民共和國政府和菲律賓共和國政府聯合新聞公報》、2011年9月1日《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國聯合聲明》都明確規定中菲雙方將通過雙邊談判協商解決領土和海洋權益爭議問題。

2002年11月4日，中國與包括菲律賓在內的東盟各國共同簽署《宣言》。《宣言》第4條明確規定，“有關各方承諾根據公認的國際法原則，包括1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》，由直接有關的主權國家通過友好磋商和談判，以和平方式解決它們的領土和管轄權爭議”。

三、菲律賓南海仲裁案違反國際法理

中國政府堅持不接受、不參與菲律賓南海仲裁案的立場，是基於該案違背基本的國際法理，是為了維護和踐行國際法治。

首先，菲律賓單方面提起仲裁違背雙方談判協商解決爭端的共識，違反“約定必須遵守”這一國際法基本原則。中菲之間早已通過雙邊文件達成通過談判協商解決有關爭端的共識，《宣言》中也有類似規定，明確排除了其他爭端解決方式。菲稱中菲雙邊的一系列文件和《宣言》都不具有約束力，並且提出中菲之間沒有排除其他爭端解決方式，完全是失信之舉，違反“約定必須遵守”的國際法基本原則。

第二，菲律賓單方面提起仲裁違反《公約》規定，侵犯中國自主選擇爭端解決方式的權利。中菲雙方已協議選擇通過談判協商解決爭議。《公約》第280條規定：本公約的任何規定均不損害任何締約國於任何時候協議用自行選擇的任何和平方法解決它們之間有關本公約的解釋或適用的爭端的權利。菲提起仲裁的真實用意就是否定中國的領土主權和海洋權益。島礁領土爭議應由一般國際法調整，不屬《公約》的調整範圍。對於海域劃界爭端，中方也根據《公約》第298條將涉及海域劃界、歷史性海灣或所有權、軍事和執法行動等方面的爭端排除在《公約》強制爭端解決程序之外。包括中國、俄羅斯、法國、英國等在內的約30個國家都作出與中方類似的聲明。菲律賓單方面提起仲裁，違背雙方早已達成的協議，侵犯中國作為主權國家和《公約》締約國享有的自主選擇爭端解決機制和程序的權利。

第三，菲律賓單方面提起仲裁違反仲裁的一般法理。根據國際法理，仲裁應在自願的原則上，由當事國共同提起。中菲之間已經形成通過談判協商解決爭議的共識，長期以來，兩國就解決南海爭議和管控海上形勢保持密切溝通，並設立建立信任措施專家組等工作機制。菲方在2011年還與中方共同發表聲明，堅持通過談判協商解決爭議。僅僅一年後，菲方就在事先未告知中方，更未徵得中方同意的情況下，突然將中菲爭議提交仲裁，完全是背信棄義的行為。菲聲稱與中方窮盡了雙邊手段，然而事實上，中菲之間關於南海問題的磋商涉及的是解決和管控領土與海域劃界爭議以及海洋合作議題，從未就菲律賓所提訴求進行過任何實質意義上的談判。

第四，菲律賓單方面提起仲裁是其領土擴張行為的延續和發展，侵犯中國領土主權。中國在南海的領土主權和海洋權益是長期歷史發展的產物，是祖宗留下來的，不能任由別人來決定。中國在第一次世界大戰結束時信任過巴黎和會，在“九·一八事變”後信任過國際聯盟，但是無一例外都被出賣了，先後丟失了山東和東北三省。歷史的教訓告訴中方，領土主權問題，只能由中國人民和中國政府才能做主，其他任何人、任何國家、任何機構都無權處置。菲律賓提起仲裁案，是企圖掩蓋非法侵佔中國南沙島礁的事實，將非法侵佔行為合法化，是侵犯中國領土主權行徑的進一步發展。

四、仲裁庭的表現如同菲律賓的“代理人”

菲方選擇在日本籍國際海洋法法庭庭長柳井俊二任職期間提起仲裁。眾所周知，中日之間在東海上存在領土主權和海洋劃界爭端，日方也一直積極介入南海問題，根據國際法的規則和普遍的國際實踐，柳井俊二理應迴避此案不做任何安排。但事實卻是，柳井任命了仲裁庭5名仲裁員中的4名，其中包括曾在有關案件中對與中方類似的立場持堅決反對態度的仲裁員。仲裁庭的組成方式明顯違反程序正義的要求。

仲裁庭違背和平解決國際爭端目的，隨意擴權，把手伸向不該管的事。仲裁庭隨意解釋法律，對明顯不具有管轄權的事項強行行使管轄權，肆意擴權，侵犯主權國家和《公約》締約國享有的權利。

仲裁庭關於管轄權問題的裁決存在大量事實和法律謬誤。仲裁庭的表現完全不像是個中立的裁斷者，更像是與菲合作反對中方觀點的搭檔。仲裁庭對菲方的訴求，往往是先預設結論，然後才開始選擇性地搜集中方的證據並且無端指責。例如仲裁庭一方面咬定案件本質不是領土主權和海洋劃界問題，但卻將中菲雙方圍繞解決領土主權和海洋劃界爭端進行的談判和協商作為菲已履行意見交換義務的依據；一方面堅持認定《宣言》不具法律約束力，又將《宣言》作為菲方已經履行交換意見義務的依據等。此外，在島礁領土地位與領土主權和海域劃界問題，以及承諾是否構成拘束力等問題上，仲裁庭引用個別新近作出且具有高度爭議性的司法判例證明其觀點，卻無視更多與其結論相反的國際司法判例，而且缺乏充分的說理，缺乏基本的嚴肅性。

五、菲律賓南海仲裁案是南海和平穩定的威脅

菲律賓南海仲裁案代表了當前國際關係中一種危險的傾向。個別國家企圖把《公約》作為唯一標準，否定包括《聯合國憲章》在內國際法所確認的領土主權神聖不可侵犯原則，掩蓋自己非法侵佔中國南沙群島有關島礁的事實。領土主權不可侵犯是國際交往的基本準則和國際法的根本原則，是國際關係穩定的基石。《公約》也明確規定其旨在妥為顧及所有國家主權的情形下，為海洋建立一種法律秩序。《公約》從未賦予一國假借《公約》主張海洋管轄權侵犯他國領土主權的權利。菲律賓單方面提起並強行推進仲裁，以所謂海洋管轄權否定中國對南沙群島的領土主權，是對尊重主權和領土完整的國際法基本原則的挑釁，動搖了現代國際法和國際秩序的基礎。

《公約》規定了包括司法和仲裁在內的爭端方式，其根本目的在於定紛止爭，從而實現和平解決國際海洋爭端的根本目的。菲南海仲裁案仲裁庭隨意擴權，將明顯不屬於其管轄範圍的領土和海域劃界爭議納入管轄範圍，並否定中菲就通過談判協商解決爭議存在共識或相關協議的效力，這不僅加劇了中菲之間的矛盾，而且影響國際和地區海洋秩序的穩定，背離和平解決國際爭端的宗旨，破壞各方為達成《公約》所形成的的脆弱平衡，也損害了《公約》的完整性和權威性。

中國和東盟國家經過近10年的艱苦談判，最終達成《宣言》。《宣言》反映了中國和東盟國家通過談判協商解決南海爭議，通過制定規則管控南海爭議，通過務實合作推動互利共贏的共識。《宣言》簽署以來，各國依據《宣言》規範本國在南海的行為，積極推動海上務實合作。2013年9月，中國和東盟國家在全面完整有效落實《宣言》的框架下啟動“南海行為準則”磋商。可以說，《宣言》已成為中國和東盟國家共同制定、共同履行的地區規範，對所有簽署國都有拘束力。菲律賓為了一己私利，無視《宣言》對維護南海和平穩定發揮的巨大作用，肆意否定《宣言》的意義，在仲裁庭面前聲稱《宣言》僅是各國妥協的產物，沒有拘束力，沒有發揮作用，嚴重損害地區和平穩定的政治基礎。

菲律賓南海仲裁案是一場披着法律外衣的政治鬧劇，既不可能改變“舊格局”，也不可能製造“新現實”。中方的不接受、不承認，不僅是法律上的，也是行動上的。無論仲裁案最終結果如何，中方都不會接受和承認裁決，更不會執行裁決，也決不同意任何國家以此裁決為基礎與中方商談南海問題。菲律賓妄想通過仲裁案否定中國在南海的領土主權和海洋權益，抹黑中國的國際形象，不會有任何結果。

In January 2013, the Philippines unilaterally initiated compulsory arbitration proceedings with respect to the disputes with China in the South China Sea. Now the Arbitral Tribunal has rendered the award on the matter of jurisdiction and admissibility, and finished the tribunal hearings of the substantive issues and the outstanding issue of jurisdiction. The Philippines unilaterally initiated the arbitration, disregarding the consensus between China and the Philippines on settling relevant disputes through negotiations and consultations, the solemn commitment of the Philippines in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), and the legitimate rights that China enjoys as a sovereign state and a contracting party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the “Convention”) to independently choose dispute settlement mechanisms and procedures. It abused the compulsory procedures for dispute settlement under the Convention in order to cover up the territorial and maritime delimitation nature of the disputes between China and the Philippines with the so-called “interpretation and application of the Convention”, to use the Convention as a pretext to negate the obligation under the UN Charter to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries, and to mislead the public and defend its illegal occupation of some maritime features of China's Nansha Islands. The act of the Philippines constitutes a gave threat to peace and stability in the region.

I. It is the expansion of the Philippine territory that led to the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea.

The essence of the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea is the territorial disputes caused by the illegal occupation of China's maritime features in the Nansha Islands by the Philippines in the 1970s in violation of the UN Charter.

The islands in the South China Sea have been Chinese territory since ancient times. The successive Chinese governments have exercised jurisdiction over them through administrative management, military navigation, production and operation as well wreck salvage. Japan seized Xisha and Nansha Islands after it launched the war of aggression against China. Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation state in explicit terms that all the territories stolen from China by Japan shall be returned to China. Since the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, China has recovered Xisha and Nansha Islands, and stationed troops and set up various military and civil facilities on the islands. Thus, in terms of both law and facts, China has resumed its sovereignty over these islands in the South China Sea.

The limits of the inherent Philippine territory were clearly set forth by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain in 1898, the Treaty Between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines in 1900, and the Convention Between the United States of America and Great Britain Delimiting the Boundary Between the Philippine Archipelago and the State of North Borneo in 1930. The Nansha Islands and Huangyan Island are not within the scope of the Philippine territory set forth in the above treaties. The Philippine Constitution and laws, including the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines in 1935, the Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines (Revised) in 1968, and the treaty on US-Philippine normal relations signed in 1947 all reaffirmed the scope of the Philippine territory laid down in the above treaties.

Since the early 1970s, the Philippines has pushed for expansionism beyond its inherent territory. Hence, it gradually occupied eight maritime features of China's Nansha Islands. In June 1978, the Philippines issued the Presidential Decree 1596, which unlawfully designated a so-called “Kalayaan Island Group” to encompass some of the maritime features of China's Nansha Islands and claimed sovereignty over them. In 2009, the Philippines revised the Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines and blatantly listed parts of China's Nansha Islands and Huangyan Island into its own territory in an attempt to make its illegal occupation permanent and legalized.

To deny China's territorial sovereignty as well as maritime rights and interests, the Philippines took irresponsible unilateral acts, such as illegal construction, moves aimed at stirring up trouble, oil and gas exploration and detention of Chinese fishermen, to escalate tensions and aggravate and complicate the disputes over the South China Sea between China and the Philippines. After illegal occupation of some maritime features of China's Nansha Islands, the Philippines sought to permanently occupy the Chinese territory and “legalize” the illegal occupation through expansion of the maritime features, construction of military facilities, ports and airports, and establishment of administrative institutions. The Philippines also attempted to further invade and occupy more maritime features of China's Nansha Islands by bombing the signs of Chinese sovereignty and “running aground” an old naval ship at Ren'ai Jiao. The Philippines unilaterally conducted oil and gas exploitation in the disputed waters in the South China Sea and arrested, detained, abused and shot dead Chinese fishermen, in an attempt to impose its claims of maritime rights and interests on the Chinese people and government. On 10 April 2012, the Philippines sent BRP Gregorio del Pilar warship into the adjacent waters of China's Huangyan Island, forcefully harassed the Chinese fishermen and fishing boats conducting normal operation there, treated the Chinese fishermen inhumanely like naked exposure to the scorching sun for a long time, and deliberately triggered the “Huangyan Island incident”.

II. China and the Philippines have chosen to settle their disputes in the South China Sea through negotiation and consultation.

The Chinese government has been all along committed to solving disputes of overlapping claims of territorial and maritime rights and interests through negotiation and consultation in accordance with the international law and on the basis of respecting historical facts. Since the 1960s, China has settled boundary questions with 12 of its 14 land neighbors through negotiations and consultations, delimiting 20,000 kilometers of boundaries, accounting for 90 percent of China's 22,000 kilometers of land boundaries. Besides, China and Vietnam has delimited the maritime boundary in the Beibu Gulf through consultations and negotiations. It is fair to say that this is a perfect example of how New China pursues the independent foreign policy, the policy of good neighborliness and international law. It is also a remarkable achievement made by New China through negotiations and consultations.

Peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiations and consultations is not only China's policy, but also in line with bilateral agreements between China and the Philippines. The following agreements all explicitly state that the two sides will solve territorial and maritime disputes through bilateral negotiation and consultation: Joint Statement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines Concerning Consultations on the South China Sea and on Other Areas of Cooperation (10 August 1995), Joint Statement of the China-Philippines Experts Group Meeting on Confidence-Building Measures (23 March 1999), Joint Statement Between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines on the Framework of Bilateral Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century (16 May 2000), Joint Press Statement Between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (3 September 2004) and Joint Statement Between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines (1 September 2011).

On 4 November 2002, China signed the DOC with the Philippines and other ASEAN countries. Paragraph 4 of the DOC explicitly states that, “The Parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means … through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

III. The South China Sea arbitration case initiated by the Philippines violates international law.

The firm position of the Chinese government to not accept or participate in the arbitration is based on the fact that the arbitration violates basic international law, and aimed to defend and practice international rule of law.

First, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration runs counter to the consensus between the two sides on settling disputes through negotiation and consultation and violates the basic norm of pacta sunt servanda in international law. Consensus has long been reached between China and the Philippines through bilateral documents that relevant disputes should be settled through negotiations and consultations, and the DOC also contains similar stipulations and clearly rules out other means of dispute settlement. The Philippines claims that the documents and the DOC are not binding and other methods of dispute settlement have not been excluded between China and the Philippines. In so doing, the Philippines has completely gone back on its commitment and violated the basic norm of pacta sunt servanda in international law.

Second, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration runs counter to the stipulations of UNCLOS and infringes on China's right to independently choose methods of dispute settlement. China and the Philippines have made the choice and agreed to settle their disputes through negotiations and consultations. Article 280 of UNCLOS stipulates that nothing impairs the right of any States Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by any peaceful means of their own choice. The true intention of the Philippines' initiation of the arbitration is to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests. Territorial disputes concerning islands and reefs should be covered by the general international law and UNCLOS has no jurisdiction over this matter. As for disputes concerning sea boundary delimitation, in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS, China has excluded disputes such as sea boundary delimitation, historic bays or titles and military and law enforcement activities from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of UNCLOS. About 30 countries, including China, Russia, France and the UK, have made similar statements as the one China did. The Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration goes against the agreement long reached between the two sides and violates the right China enjoys as a sovereign state and a State Party to UNCLOS to independently choose dispute settlement mechanisms and procedures.

Third, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration runs counter to the basic legal principles for arbitration. According to the principles of international law, arbitrations should be jointly initiated by parties involved out of their own will. China and the Philippines have already reached the consensus that disputes should be settled through negotiations and consultations and the two countries have long engaged in close communication on settlement of disputes in the South China Sea as well as management and control of the maritime situation there. The two sides have also set up work mechanisms such as the confidence-building experts' group. In 2011, the Philippines even issued a joint statement with China in which it stated its commitment to settling disputes through negotiations and consultations. However, after just one year, the Philippines suddenly put up its disputes with China for arbitration without notifying China beforehand, let alone seeking China's consent. This is nothing but a treacherous act. The Philippines claims that it has exhausted all bilateral means, yet in fact consultations between China and the Philippines have all along focused on resolving and managing territorial and maritime delimitation disputes as well as maritime cooperation. No substantive negotiation has ever been held on the Philippines' arbitral demands.

Fourth, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration is the continuation and development of its territorial expansion and infringes on China's territorial sovereignty. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests are the results of long historical developments. They are left to us by our ancestors and are not up for someone else to decide. China trusted the Paris Peace Conference after WWI and the League of Nations after the September 18 Incident in 1931. But on both cases China was betrayed and as a result lost its Shandong Province and three northeastern provinces. History has taught us that only the Chinese people and government can decide on issues involving territory and sovereignty and no other people, country or institution shall have the right to make such decisions. By initiating the arbitration, the Philippines tries to cover up the fact that it has illegally occupied China's islands and reefs in the Nansha Islands and attempts to legitimize its illegal occupation. This represents a further step in its infringement upon China's territorial sovereignty.

IV. The Arbitration Tribunal has acted like the Philippines' agent.

The Philippines chose to launch the arbitration case when Shunji Yanai, a Japanese national, worked as President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). It is well-known that China and Japan have disputes on territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation in the East China Sea and Japan has been actively interfering in the South China Sea issue. According to the rules of international law and common practice in the world, Shunji Yanai should recuse himself from this case and refrain from making any arrangement. However, He appointed four of the five arbitrators in the tribunal, including arbitrators who were firmly opposed to China's similar positions in relevant previous cases. The composition of the arbitration tribunal is clearly against procedural justice.

The arbitration tribunal, in disregard of the purpose of peaceful settlement of international disputes, has expanded its power at will and reached out to matters beyond its jurisdiction. By explaining the law as it pleases, imposing its jurisdiction on matters that are clearly outside of its mandate and expanding its power willfully, the tribunal has violated the rights of sovereign states and State Parties to UNCLOS.

The tribunal has made a great number of factual and legal mistakes in its ruling on the matter of jurisdiction. Instead of functioning as a neutral judge, the tribunal acts more like the Philippines' partner in countering China's position. The tribunal often set a conclusion first for requests from the Philippines before selectively gathering evidence against China and making unwarranted accusations. For example, the tribunal asserted that the nature of this case is not about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, yet it treated negotiations and consultations between China and the Philippines on settling disputes cover territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation as evidence that the Philippines has fulfilled its obligation of exchanging opinions with China. It declared the DOC not legally binding, while using the document as evidence that the Philippines has carried out its obligation of exchanging opinions. In addition, on issues involving the territorial status of islands and reefs, territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation as well as whether pledges are binding, the tribunal cited some recent and highly controversial judicial rulings to support its point while ignoring international judicial cases whose rulings are categorically different from its own ruling. Furthermore, the tribunal failed to provide necessary reasoning and take the case serious enough.

V. The Philippines' arbitration case is a threat to peace and stability in the South China Sea.

The Philippines' South China Sea arbitration case represents a dangerous tendency in current international relations. Some countries try to use UNCLOS as the only standard and deny the principle that territorial sovereignty is sacred and inviolable established under international law, including the UN Charter. They attempt to cover up the fact that they are illegally occupying China's islands and reefs in the Nansha Islands. Inviolability of territorial sovereignty is the basic norm in international exchanges and a basic principle in international law. It is the bedrock for stable international relations. UNCLOS also clearly stipulates that it intends to build a legal order for the seas and oceans with due regard for the sovereignty of all states. UNCLOS has never given a country the right to violate other countries' territorial sovereignty under the guise of its maritime jurisdiction. The Philippines has unilaterally initiated and pushed ahead the arbitration and used the so-called maritime jurisdiction to deny China's territorial sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. This is a provocation against the basic principle of international law about respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and shakes the foundation of the modern international law and international order.

UNCLOS lays out methods to settle disputes, including judicial and arbitration means, with the fundamental purpose of stopping disputes and peacefully resolving international maritime disputes. In the Philippines' South China Sea arbitration case, the arbitration tribunal has willfully expanded its power and included territorial and maritime delimitation disputes, which are clearly outside of its mandate, under its jurisdiction and denied the binding nature of the consensus and relevant agreements between China and the Philippines on settling disputes through negotiation and consultation. This has not only exacerbated the problem between China and the Philippines, but also affected the stability of regional and international maritime order. This is against the purpose of peaceful settlement of international disputes, undermines the fragile balance reached between different parties for UNCLOS and also harms the integrity and authority of UNCLOS.

After nearly 10 years of difficult negotiations, China and ASEAN countries finally reached the DOC. The DOC reflects the consensus between China and ASEAN countries on resolving the South China Sea dispute through negotiations and consultations, managing and controlling disputes by formulating rules and promoting mutual benefits through practical cooperation. After signing the DOC, countries have regulated their behaviors in the South China Sea in accordance with the DOC and actively promoted practical maritime cooperation. In September 2013, China and ASEAN countries launched the consultation on a code of conduct in the South China Sea under the framework of the full and effective implementation of the DOC. It is fair to say that the DOC has become a regional standard jointly formulated and implemented by China and ASEAN countries and is binding for all the signatories. The Philippines, out of its own selfish interests, has disregarded the tremendous role of the DOC in maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea, willfully denied the significance of the DOC and claimed before the arbitration tribunal that the DOC is only a product of compromise between countries, has no binding force and has not played any role. This has greatly harmed the political foundation for regional peace and stability.

The Philippines' South China Sea arbitration is a political farce under a legal cloak. It can neither change the “old order” nor create a “new reality”. China does not accept nor recognize the arbitration, both in a legal sense and in action. Whatever the ultimate result of the arbitration case, China will not accept or recognize its ruling, let alone implement it. China will never allow any country to negotiate with China about the South China Sea issue based on that ruling. The Philippines dreams about denying China its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests and tarnishing China's image in the world through this arbitration case. Such attempt is doomed to fail.