The Philippines recently filed a complaint against China over the South China Sea disputes in the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

China isn't fearful of the suit. The action of the Philippines violated the stipulations of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

In line with UNCLOS, before the maritime boundary delimitation dispute is resolved, the disputants should lay out transitional agreement, and avoid taking unilateral actions that prejudice the settlement.

China and the ASEAN claimants in the South China Sea disputes once agreed to shelve the disputes and develop the resources jointly.

In March, 2011, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III expressed a desire to exploit the resources in Reed Tablemount, known as Liyue Tan in China, together with other claimants. However, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario rejected the statement in February 2012 and excluded the possibility of joint exploitation of Reed Tablemount, which is an integral part of the Nansha Islands.

Regarding the Huangyan Island incident in April 2012, the Philippines sent a warship to arrest Chinese fishermen anchored in the lagoon of the island. The island is China's territory in accordance with UNCLOS. The adjacent 12 nautical mile-wide waters, therefore, is its territorial sea, where China has the legal right to implement domestic laws and regulations.

The Philippines without any doubt violated the convention in terms of innocent passage and should be driven out immediately due to the law on the territorial sea of China.

Although the warship was withdrawn from the waters, Aquino proclaimed thereafter never to drop sovereignty claims over Huangyan Island, based on the statement that the island is within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Philippines' Luzon Island. But the Philippines ignored a significant point: The essence of the UNCLOS is that the land dominates the sea, but not vice versa.

Above all, coastal states have sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, managing and conserving natural resources and in respect of economic exploration and exploitation activities within the EEZ. In this sense, the EEZ doesn't belong to the territory of the coastal states, and nor do the land features growing from there. The claim puts the cart before the horse.

The US once declared it would not take sides with regard to the South China Sea disputes. The Philippines actively accelerated the internationalization of the disputes and depended on the US pressuring China to make compromises.

In case of military conflict between China and the Philippines stemming from the South China Sea disputes, the latter hopes the US will get involved in and provide assistance to it based on the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippine and the US signed in 1951.

However, to the Philippines' disappointment, the US has not yet given a definite answer.

It's the Philippines that has stirred up trouble and lost face before the world. It threatened to appeal to some international organs several times in the past, but China shrugged and stood firm in safeguarding national interests. The Philippines grew stubborn and proceeded to submit the disputes to the ITLOS.

The UNCLOS prescribes some kinds of disputes which can jump out of the binding regime, for example, maritime boundary delimitation.

In accordance with the requirement, China has made a written declaration to opt out of the regime in respect to disputes of the kind. Huangyan Island is entitled to enjoy EEZ and continental shelf, where the maritime surveillance vessels and fishery administration boats are continuing to perform routine patrols as they did in the past.

The overlapping of EEZ between China and the Philippines has become an irreversible trend. The Huangyan Island dispute relates to boundary delimitation immune from the binding regime.

In dealing with the dispute, the Philippines failed to act with sufficient sincerity, and refused to seek resolution with China within the bilateral scope. Instead, they hastily went to arbitration in violation of the convention. They should have undergone bilateral negotiations first.

International laws and rules serve China's national interests. Justice will serve you when you stand by it.

The author is a research fellow in international relations at Hainan Provincial Party School. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn