Editor's Note:

The outcome of the South China Sea arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines is expected to be announced soon. No matter what the outcome is, China has made clear that it will stick to its position of not accepting or participating in the arbitration. What are the legal bases for China's position? How do Chinese experts see the arbitration? Chinese scholars shared their views at an academic seminar organized by the Chinese Society of International Law in Changchun, Jilin Province last week.

Li Shishi, president of Chinese Society of International Law

The international situation has undergone profound changes in recent years, putting forward new demands for our research on international law. Economically, global economic and financial orders are experiencing accelerated readjustments. Politically, developing countries are emerging. In security, China's territorial sovereignty and the safety of people's lives and property are challenged by certain nations.

China has always been a contributor to global peace. How to better realize China's foreign strategies is a project facing every scholar on international law. Regarding the South China Sea legal battle, some countries have maliciously used the arbitration to stir up trouble for China. To tackle the above challenges, we need to strengthen our international law studies. The core of major-power competition lies in the right to write the rules. As a major power, China is expected to participate in the international rule-making process. Hence, we need to put forward innovative theories on international law with Chinese characteristics that are acceptable to the world. We also need to better apply the theories into China's foreign policies. On the South China Sea arbitration, we should highlight the legal basis of China's historical rights, and refute the Philippines' claims from a legal perspective.

Huang Yao, dean and professor at the School of Law, Sun Yat-sen University

China has reiterated its position of not accepting or participating in the arbitration no matter what the outcome is. In face of possibly high international pressure, it is necessary for China to clarify the legal basis of the unlawfulness of the final verdict. The Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the disputes between China and the Philippines. Its composition and the selection of arbitrators were not equitable. China is legally entitled to choose not to implement the final award.

Some are concerned that China may establish an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea after the verdict is announced. Yet an ADIZ may intensify the already tense situation in the relevant waters.

The Chinese side can continue its construction work on the Huangyan Island, which is within China's sovereignty. But it needs to be aware of protests by neighboring nations that may be sparked by the constructions.

Yu Mincai, professor with Renmin University of China

China's position of not accepting or participating in the arbitration does not mean China has done nothing. To begin with, China's Position Paper on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Philippines has played an important role in the case.

It is a procedural victory for China as the Arbitral Tribunal has to take the position paper into consideration before making any announcement. However, the award on jurisdiction and admissibility of the South China Sea is set to be unfavorable to the Chinese side, as the tribunal has accepted the Philippines' claims.

In fact, there would have been a different scenario if China had conducted unofficial communication with the Arbitral Tribunal. After all, cooperation with relevant law units and agencies would be helpful for China in the case. Despite China's clear-cut position, China's effective communications with the Arbitral Tribunal on unofficial occasions can help make the final verdict more favorable to the Chinese side.

Yao Ying, associate professor with Jilin University

The Arbitral Tribunal has adopted a double standard in interpreting the UNCLOS. Article 298 under UNCLOS should function as a safety valve balancing national sovereignty and compulsory dispute settlement procedures.

However, the tribunal's restrictive interpretation of Article 298 goes against the purposes, aims and principles of the UNCLOS. In addition, the subject-matters of the Philippines' claims are in essence issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. China has already excluded, through a declaration made in 2006 pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, disputes concerning maritime delimitation from the application of arbitration and other compulsory procedures.

Matters concerning territorial sovereignty go beyond the scope of UNCLOS as well. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal has no jurisdiction on the disputes between China and the Philippines. China is justified not to accept or participate in the arbitration.