The tribunal handling the South China Sea arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government issued its final award on Tuesday, amid a global chorus that as the panel has no jurisdiction, its decision is naturally null and void.
In a press release accompanying the 479-page award, the five-member tribunal offered a summary of its decisions, which sweepingly side with the claims filed by the administration of former Philippine President Benigno S. Aquino III.
China has refused to participate in the proceedings, reiterating that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case, which is in essence related to territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.
"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China solemnly declares that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognizes it," the ministry said in a statement shortly after the publication of the award.
More than 60 countries and international organizations, as well as over 130 foreign political parties and groups, have voiced support for China's principled position, far outnumbering those backing the assertions of the Aquino administration and the United States, which is widely considered as a primary instigator behind the arbitration case.
China refuses South China Sea arbitration award
China said Tuesday it neither accepts nor recognizes the award of an arbitral tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the request of the Philippines.
"The award is null and void and has no binding force," the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement. >>>
Why will China never respect U.S. over South China Sea?
The United States, one of the most vocal countries urging China to hew to arbitration in the South China Sea, is still an outlier to the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNClOS) to which more than 160 countries, including China are party. >>>
Tribunal has handled arbitration case irresponsibly, law experts say
The arbitration tribunal in the South China Sea dispute has explained the case in an irresponsible way and set a bad precedent, according to law professionals and scholars on international law from around the world. >>>
