Ruling on Phl maritime case vs China seen next year

MANILA, Philippines - A ruling on the Philippines’ case against Chinese claims in the South China Sea could be the most significant move by any tribunal established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

However, a finding of no jurisdiction by the judges over the case will dim hopes of using arbitration as a peaceful means of resolution in the future.

Officials at the US think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said a tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague would likely rule on the Philippine case against Chinese claims by the end of 2015 or 2016.

This is expected to shape Southeast Asia as other countries which have claims in waters in the South China Sea are watching the case, Murray Hiebert, a senior fellow and deputy director of the Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies at the CSIS in Washington, and Gregory Poling, a fellow with the Sumitro Chair, said.

“Decision could be the most significant by any tribunal established under the UNCLOS,” Hiebert and Poling pointed out.

CSIS Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies is a forum for high-level policy dialogue focusing on the region and US interests.

The Philippines initiated an arbitration case against China to challenge its so-called “nine-dash line” position, an expansive claim of “indisputable sovereignty” over almost the entire South China Sea.

“If the judges find that they do not have jurisdiction, it will dim hopes of using arbitration as a peaceful means of resolution in the future,” Hiebert and Poling said in their commentary.

“But if the judges do find jurisdiction, they will almost certainly rule China’s nine-dash line an invalid claim to maritime space.”

China has rejected arbitration and indicated that Beijing is not participating in the arbitration process.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration set Dec. 15 for Beijing to submit its counter-memorial response to Manila’s written arguments.

But China ignored the deadline and argued the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the case.

In that case, Beijing, which maintains that it will not take part in the proceedings and will not submit its arguments, “will face some difficult choices,” Hiebert and Poling said.