<p>
Tuesday's (July 12, 2016) ruling by the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration answers a complaint brought by the Philippines in 2013, which accused Beijing of violating the U.N.'s Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) with its aggressive actions on the Scarborough Shoal, a reef located about 225 kilometers off the Philippine coast.
</p>
<p>
The Permanent Court of Arbitration said Beijing's claim of virtual sovereignty over nearly all the South China Sea under a so-called "nine-dash line" that stretches from the southern China coast runs contrary to UNCLOS, which sets a country's maritime boundaries 12 nautical miles from its coast, and control over economic activities up to 200 nautical miles from its coast. 
</p>
<p>
China has launched a massive land seizure and rebuilding effort throughout the South China Sea in recent years, rebuilding numerous reefs into artificial islands that can support military installations, all the while ignoring competing claims over the region by Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan, as well as the Philippines.
</p>
<p>
The Hague court also ruled that none of the Spratly Islands granted China an exclusive economic zone, and that its construction activities on Mischief Reef caused "irreparable harm" to the reef's ecosystem.
</p>
<p>
China has boycotted the proceedings at the court, saying the body has no jurisdiction over the dispute, and insists it will not accept, recognize or implement any ruling on the South China Sea, despite being a signatory to UNCLOS along with the Philippines.  In a statement issued just hours before The Hague announced its decision, state-run Xinhua news agency said the "law-abusing tribunal" had issued an "ill-founded award."
</p>
<p>
Despite Tuesday's ruling, the U.N. has no mechanism to enforce the decision, either through military action or economic sanctions.  But it could prompt China's other Asia-Pacific rivals to also file suit, putting increased diplomatic pressure on Beijing to reduce its presence in the South China Sea.  The United States has also challenged Beijing's increasing aggressiveness in the region, holding a number of naval exercises and deploying warships near the rebuilt reefs to assert the international freedom of navigation rules.
</p>
<p>
China's response could also depend on actions by new Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has called for bilateral negotiations to resolve the controversy.
</p>
<p>
Harry Kazianis, a Senior Fellow for Defense Policy at the Center for the National Interest, recently told VOA that China could take three options in response to the ruling:  it could simply continue with its present course of action, declare an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea, or "go rogue," meaning that Chinese President Xi Jinping could exert additional pressure in the region. 
</p>
<p>
China has been conducting a series of military exercises around the Paracel Islands in anticipation of Tuesday's ruling.
</p>

<h3>
What's behind the dispute? 
</h3>
<p>
China claims nearly the entire 3.5 million square-kilometer South China Sea, based on its so-called "nine-dashed line," which it says is based on ancient maps. China's claims overlap with not only the Philippines, but also Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan. Some of the disputes stretch back decades or even centuries. But tensions have worsened in recent years, as Beijing has moved to assert its control over the territory.
</p>
<h3>
Who brought the case against China? 
</h3>
<p>
The Philippines filed the case against China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague in January 2013. Manila argues Beijing's territorial claims and recent aggressive activities in the South China Sea violate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an international treaty both nations have ratified.
</p>
<h3>
How has China responded?
</h3>
<p>
China refuses to participate in the tribunal, arguing it has no obligation to do so under UNCLOS. Beijing has also repeatedly insisted it will not recognize what it predicts will be a biased ruling. In the meantime, China has continued to build artificial islands and military outposts in the contested waters, in an attempt to create "facts on the ground."
</p>
<div class="image-500">
<img loading="lazy" src="https://cdn.kahimyang.com/resources/south-china-sea-reclamation-2.webp" alt="Anti-China protest Sout China Sea" />
<div>
(Demonstrators display a part of a fishing boat with anti-China protest signs during a rally by different activist groups over the South China Sea disputes, outside the Chinese Consulate in Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines, July 12, 2016.)
</div>
</div>
<h3>
What exactly is the court considering? 
</h3>
<p>
The Philippines brought a total of 15 complaints against China. The most significant is complaint number two, which claims China's "nine-dash line" is contrary to UNCLOS. So far, the court has not determined it has jurisdiction to rule on that complaint.
</p>
<p>
Instead, the tribunal announced late last year it will tackle seven other critical issues. These include complaints challenging specific Chinese activities around particular locations. It is also expected to officially categorize various land features as either rocks, islands, or low tide elevations - labels that would affect the rights of whoever owns the territory.
</p>
<h3>
Is the ruling binding? 
</h3>
<p>
Technically, yes. But in reality, UNCLOS has no way to enforce its rulings, since it does not have a police force, an army or a way to impose sanctions on those who ignore its decisions. Some analysts have speculated that the matter could be taken to the U.N. Security Council, but China and Russia, which are permanent members, would inevitably veto any action there.
</p>
<h3>
If the ruling is not enforceable, why does it matter? 
</h3>
<p>
If, as expected, the court rules at least partially in the Philippines' favor, it could put important diplomatic pressure on China. It could also provide an important symbolic victory for Asian leaders who say Beijing is ignoring international law as it seeks to assert its power in the region.
</p>
<p>
A ruling against China would also set an important legal precedent and become part of international law. It could also encourage other countries who have territorial disputes with China to take similar legal action.
</p>
<h3>
What is the U.S. stance on the dispute?
</h3>
<p>
The U.S. says it takes no official position on China's various territorial disputes. But top officials have repeatedly criticized China's actions in the South China Sea and have urged China to accept the court's eventual ruling. However, any U.S. efforts to publicly shame Beijing may be limited by the fact that Washington itself has refused to ratify UNCLOS.
</p>
<h3>
So what's next?
</h3>
<p>
China's next move is uncertain. Some have said it may withdraw in protest from the UNCLOS treaty system. But that can only be done with a year's notice, allowing other nations plenty of time to file last-minute cases. The move also may reinforce a perception that Beijing does not want to play by the established rules of international order.
</p>
<p>
China says it prefers to solve territorial disputes through direct negotiations, but has taken no meaningful steps toward holding talks. Instead, Beijing is seemingly content to let the disputes play out as it continues building in the disputed areas.
</p>
<h3>
Will anything change under the Philippines new president? 
</h3>
<p>
The Philippines' new president, Rodrigo Duterte, says he is open to bilateral talks with China if the standoff is not resolved in two years. That represents a policy difference from his predecessor, Benigno Aquino, who took a hardline stance on the territorial dispute.
</p>
<p>
But Duterte also made it clear this week he does not intend to give up much ground, saying the disputed territory "is ours," and telling China: "You have no right to be there." The tough-talking politician has also threatened to personally ride a jet ski to one of the disputed islands to stake his country's claim.
</p>
<h3>
What's at stake? 
</h3>
<p>
A lot of money, and a lot of national pride. More than $5 trillion in trade passes through the South China Sea every year. The area is also home to vital fishing grounds and is thought to contain vast natural gas and oil deposits. Political leaders in many claimant countries have also exploited the issue to rouse nationalistic sentiment.
</p>


<p>
<b>Sources</b>: 
</p>
<ol class="article-sources">
<li>
UN Arbitration Court Rules Against China, William Gallo,  July 12, 2016, (<a href="https://goo.gl/pruIqQ" class="news_link" target="_blank" title="Source">http://www.voanews.com/</a>)
</li>
<li>
Photo credit: http://www.voanews.com/
</li>
</ol>


UN arbitration court rules in favor of the Philippines