How should China react to the Philippines' provocation of submitting a case against China's territorial claims in the South China Sea with the UN arbitral tribunal? China has on many occasions expressed its stance - it will neither accept nor participate in the Philippines' proposed international arbitration. However, I think China should respond in a more proactive manner.

The tribunal has to make a judgment under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) whether the accusation by the Philippines is well-founded, whether the accusation abuses the disputes settlement procedure stipulated by the UNCLOS, and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over the case.

As to whether the accusation is well-founded, China should direct the world to focus on the Nansha and Zhongsha islands.

In 1978, the Philippines annexed most of the areas of the Nansha Islands and ascribed them to the administration of Palawan province.

The Philippines claimed sovereignty over Meiji Reef and Liyue Tan, also known as the Reed Bank, by reason of their location within its exclusive economic zone, which is obviously in violation of the "land-dominates-the-sea" spirit, and puts the cart before the horse.

Huangyan Island is a land formation above the water at the high tide of the Zhongsha Islands, over which the Philippines claimed sovereignty in 1979.

However, the evidence provided by it to prove the so-called effective occupation is disadvantageous in temporal scope, quantity and quality compared to that of China.

China should also prove that the Philippines violated the stipulations of UNCLOS concerning the disputes settlement procedure.

When disputes arise in explaining and applying the convention, the disputants should find resolution by means of negotiation, on-site investigation, mediation, conciliation, legal procedure and regional institutions first. Only after the exhaustion of the first step should the second process start.

The second process is compulsory binding disputes settlement institution. At the request of either disputant, the dispute may be submitted to one or more possible judicial proceedings.

When the Huangyan Island dispute broke out, the Philippines sought help from the US, thereby spreading the dispute beyond the region and internationalizing the regional dispute. More seriously, from start to finish, the Philippines failed to demonstrate good faith in negotiation by proclaiming from the very beginning that the dispute be submitted to the UN arbitral tribunal.

According to the UNCLOS, the tribunal listed in the second step judges whether it has jurisdiction over the submitted dispute. On this point, China should exert positive influence.

In line with UNCLOS, the state members may opt out of the compulsory binding disputes settlement for some kinds of disputes through issuing a written proclamation. The crux then lies in whether the Sino-Filipino South China Sea dispute is one such.

China, as a contracting party to UNCLOS, made a declaration in 2006, which excluded disputes on maritime delimitation and historic title or rights from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures, in accordance with relevant provisions concerning optional exceptions.

The Philippines has proclaimed Huangyan Island to be within its exclusive economic zone, thus making the dispute evolve into a maritime boundary delimitation dispute, over which the UN arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction.

By careful and just tactics, China will end up with the last laugh.

Li Jieyu, an assistant professor in Hainan Provincial Party School