In January 2013, the Philippines unilaterally initiated the South China Sea arbitration against China under Part XV and Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and has been obstinately pushing it forward ever since.

The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration concerns territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. The former is beyond the scope of the UNCLOS and does not concern the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS, but should be settled on the basis of history and general international law. The latter falls within the scope of the declaration filed by China in 2006 pursuant to Article 298 of the UNCLOS, which excludes, among others, disputes concerning maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration and other compulsory dispute settlement procedures.

China and the Philippines have agreed, through bilateral instruments and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), to settle their disputes through negotiations. By unilaterally submitting the dispute to arbitration, the Philippines has breached the agreement between the two states. The Philippines has further violated the principle of consent in international dispute settlement and relevant provisions for initiating the UNCLOS compulsory procedures. It further directly breaches China's right to freely choose the means of dispute settlement as a state party of the UNCLOS, and upsets the integrity and authority of and the balance in the UNCLOS.

The Philippines' unilateral initiation and obstinate pushing forward of the arbitration is a political provocation under the cloak of law. It is not trying to settle the disputes, but is in essence an attempt to negate China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea, and whitewash the Philippines' illegal seizure of or claims on several maritime features of China's Nansha Islands. Such attempts, however, can never be realized.

The Arbitral Tribunal established at the request of the Philippines for the South China Sea arbitration manifestly had no competence or jurisdiction over this case from the very beginning. Regrettably, it fails to discern the real dispute between China and the Philippines, and wrongly establishes its jurisdiction over half of the Philippines' submissions and reserves consideration of its jurisdiction over the remaining submissions to the merits phase.

According to Article 9 of the Annex VII of the UNCLOS, in the case of default of appearance, the Arbitral Tribunal, before making its award, must satisfy itself not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law.

Unfortunately, the Arbitral Tribunal has endorsed the Philippines' approach both in fact and law. Notably, it detaches the political and legal aspects of the disputes, ignores China's long history in Nansha Islands, dissects the unity of Nansha Islands, and isolates the whole UNCLOS and its individual provisions. Indeed, the Arbitral Tribunal has become an agent for the Philippines.

In light of the manifest lack of jurisdiction and biased position on the part of the Arbitral Tribunal, its awards, both that on jurisdiction and that forthcoming on merits, are beyond its powers.

China's position of neither accepting nor participating in the arbitration is consistent and clear-cut. In December 2014, China released the Position Paper on the matter of jurisdiction in the South China Sea arbitration initiated by the Philippines, explicitly elaborating on China's grounds to reject the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.

In October 2015, China issued a statement on the award delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal on the matter of jurisdiction and admissibility, announcing that the award was null and void, not binding on China. Whatever the forthcoming final award is, China will not recognize it, let alone implement it. In short, China's position can be summarized as 4-nons - non-acceptance, non-participation, non-recognition and non-implementation.

China's 4-nons-position not only stands on solid ground in international law, but also safeguards the international rule of law. China's position is in accordance with the principle of consent and customary practice in international dispute settlement. China's position is to maintain China's right to freely choose the means of dispute settlement both as a sovereign state and a state party to the UNCLOS.

China will respect and implement the agreement between China and the Philippines to settle their relevant disputes through negotiations, and is thus in accordance with the principle that agreements must be kept. China's position is to safeguard its sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, as well as to preserve the integrity, authority and solemnity of the UNCLOS.

The forthcoming final award, whatever it is, will not create any new reality unfavorable to China; nor will it shake China's resolve and determination to safeguard its sovereignty and maritime rights and interests; nor will it affect the policy and position of China to resolve the relevant disputes by direct negotiations and work together with other states in the region to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.

The author is deputy director-general of the Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article is an abstract from his speech at the Annual Conference of the Chinese Society of International Law held in Jilin University, China, on Saturday. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn