2013年1月，菲律宾单方面强行就中菲南海争议提起仲裁。目前，仲裁庭已就管辖权和可受理性问题作出裁定，并完成实体问题和未决的管辖权问题庭审。菲律宾单方面提起仲裁，无视中菲之间已经形成通过谈判协商解决争端的共识和菲在《南海各方行为宣言》（以下简称《宣言》）中的郑重承诺，无视中国作为主权国家和《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称《公约》）缔约国享有的自主选择争端解决机制和程序的权利，滥用《公约》强制争端解决机制，企图以所谓的《公约》解释和适用问题来掩盖中菲争议的实质是领土和海域划界争议，企图以《公约》来否定《联合国宪章》尊重他国领土主权完整的义务，混淆视听，为自己非法侵占中国南沙群岛部分岛礁的行为张目，构成对地区和平稳定的严重威胁。

一、菲律宾领土扩张行为导致中菲南海争议

中菲南海有关争议的核心是20世纪70年代起菲律宾违背《联合国宪章》陆续非法侵占我南沙群岛部分岛礁而引发的领土争议。

南海诸岛自古就是中国领土。历代中国政府通过行政设制、军事巡航、生产经营、海难救助等方式持续对南海诸岛及相关海域进行管辖。日本在发动全面侵华战争后，侵占了中国西沙、南沙群岛。《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦公告》明确规定，日本应归还窃取的中国领土。抗战胜利后，中国收复西沙、南沙群岛，在岛上派兵驻守并建立各类军事、民事设施，从法律和事实上恢复对南海诸岛行使主权。

菲律宾固有领土范围是由1898年《美西和平条约》、1900年美西《关于菲律宾外围岛屿割让的条约》、1930年《关于划定英属北婆罗洲与美属菲律宾之间的边界条约》明确规定的。南沙群岛和黄岩岛根本不在上述条约规定的菲律宾版图内。菲律宾宪法和法律，如1935年菲律宾共和国宪法、1968年菲律宾领海基线（修正）法案，以及1947年美菲一般关系条约，均重申了上述条约所规定的菲律宾领土范围。

从20世纪70年代初起，菲律宾突破其本国的固有领土，推行领土扩张主义，陆续侵占中国南沙群岛的8个岛礁。1978年6月，菲律宾颁布第1596号总统令，以所谓的“卡拉延岛群”的说法对中国南沙群岛部分岛礁提出非法的领土要求。菲律宾还于2009年修订领海基线法，悍然将中国南沙群岛部分岛礁和黄岩岛列入其领土范围，企图将非法侵占永久化、合法化。

为了否定中国的中方领土主权和海洋权益，菲律宾通过强化非法建设、挑动事端、油气勘探、抓扣渔民等不负责任的单方面行为，加剧局势紧张，推动中菲南海争议进一步扩大化、复杂化。菲律宾在非法侵占中国南沙群岛部分岛礁后，通过扩建岛礁、建立军事设施、建设港口机场、设立行政建制等方式，企图长期占据并将非法侵占“合法化”。菲律宾还通过炸毁中国岛礁主权标志、利用旧军舰“坐滩”中国仁爱礁等，企图进一步侵占中国南沙群岛有关岛礁。菲律宾单方面在南海争议海域进行油气开采和在中国渔民的传统渔场抓扣、虐待、枪杀中国中方渔民，企图通过单方面行动将其海洋权益主张强加给中国人民和中国政府。2012年4月10日，菲律宾“德尔·皮拉尔”号军舰，侵入中国黄岩岛海域，武力袭扰在该海域正常作业的中国渔民、渔船，并对中国渔民施以长时间裸身曝晒等严重的非人道待遇措施，蓄意挑起“黄岩岛事件”。

二、中菲已选择谈判协商这一方式解决南海争议

中国政府一贯坚持在尊重历史事实的基础上，根据国际法，通过谈判协商解决领土和海洋权益主张重叠争议。自20世纪60年代以来，中国通过谈判协商已与14个陆地邻国中的12个解决了边界问题，划定边界长度达约20000公里，占中国约22000公里陆地边界的90%。此外，中国和越南通过谈判协商划定了两国在北部湾的海洋边界。可以说，这是新中国奉行独立自主的外交政策及睦邻友好的周边外交政策，践行国际法的最好例证，也是新中国通过谈判协商取得的举世瞩目的成就。

通过谈判协商和平解决争议不仅是中方的政策，也是中菲双边达成的协议。1995年8月10日《中华人民共和国和菲律宾共和国关于南海问题和其他领域合作的磋商联合声明》、1999年3月23日《中菲建立信任措施工作小组会议联合公报》、2000年5月16日《中华人民共和国政府和菲律宾共和国政府关于21世纪双边合作框架的联合声明》、2004年9月3日《中华人民共和国政府和菲律宾共和国政府联合新闻公报》、2011年9月1日《中华人民共和国和菲律宾共和国联合声明》都明确规定中菲双方将通过双边谈判协商解决领土和海洋权益争议问题。

2002年11月4日，中国与包括菲律宾在内的东盟各国共同签署《宣言》。《宣言》第4条明确规定，“有关各方承诺根据公认的国际法原则，包括1982年《联合国海洋法公约》，由直接有关的主权国家通过友好磋商和谈判，以和平方式解决它们的领土和管辖权争议”。

三、菲律宾南海仲裁案违反国际法理

中国政府坚持不接受、不参与菲律宾南海仲裁案的立场，是基于该案违背基本的国际法理，是为了维护和践行国际法治。

首先，菲律宾单方面提起仲裁违背双方谈判协商解决争端的共识，违反“约定必须遵守”这一国际法基本原则。中菲之间早已通过双边文件达成通过谈判协商解决有关争端的共识，《宣言》中也有类似规定，明确排除了其他争端解决方式。菲称中菲双边的一系列文件和《宣言》都不具有约束力，并且提出中菲之间没有排除其他争端解决方式，完全是失信之举，违反“约定必须遵守”的国际法基本原则。

第二，菲律宾单方面提起仲裁违反《公约》规定，侵犯中国自主选择争端解决方式的权利。中菲双方已协议选择通过谈判协商解决争议。《公约》第280条规定：本公约的任何规定均不损害任何缔约国于任何时候协议用自行选择的任何和平方法解决它们之间有关本公约的解释或适用的争端的权利。菲提起仲裁的真实用意就是否定中国的领土主权和海洋权益。岛礁领土争议应由一般国际法调整，不属《公约》的调整范围。对于海域划界争端，中方也根据《公约》第298条将涉及海域划界、历史性海湾或所有权、军事和执法行动等方面的争端排除在《公约》强制争端解决程序之外。包括中国、俄罗斯、法国、英国等在内的约30个国家都作出与中方类似的声明。菲律宾单方面提起仲裁，违背双方早已达成的协议，侵犯中国作为主权国家和《公约》缔约国享有的自主选择争端解决机制和程序的权利。

第三，菲律宾单方面提起仲裁违反仲裁的一般法理。根据国际法理，仲裁应在自愿的原则上，由当事国共同提起。中菲之间已经形成通过谈判协商解决争议的共识，长期以来，两国就解决南海争议和管控海上形势保持密切沟通，并设立建立信任措施专家组等工作机制。菲方在2011年还与中方共同发表声明，坚持通过谈判协商解决争议。仅仅一年后，菲方就在事先未告知中方，更未征得中方同意的情况下，突然将中菲争议提交仲裁，完全是背信弃义的行为。菲声称与中方穷尽了双边手段，然而事实上，中菲之间关于南海问题的磋商涉及的是解决和管控领土与海域划界争议以及海洋合作议题，从未就菲律宾所提诉求进行过任何实质意义上的谈判。

第四，菲律宾单方面提起仲裁是其领土扩张行为的延续和发展，侵犯中国领土主权。中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益是长期历史发展的产物，是祖宗留下来的，不能任由别人来决定。中国在第一次世界大战结束时信任过巴黎和会，在“九·一八事变”后信任过国际联盟，但是无一例外都被出卖了，先后丢失了山东和东北三省。历史的教训告诉中方，领土主权问题，只能由中国人民和中国政府才能做主，其他任何人、任何国家、任何机构都无权处置。菲律宾提起仲裁案，是企图掩盖非法侵占中国南沙岛礁的事实，将非法侵占行为合法化，是侵犯中国领土主权行径的进一步发展。

四、仲裁庭的表现如同菲律宾的“代理人”

菲方选择在日本籍国际海洋法法庭庭长柳井俊二任职期间提起仲裁。众所周知，中日之间在东海上存在领土主权和海洋划界争端，日方也一直积极介入南海问题，根据国际法的规则和普遍的国际实践，柳井俊二理应回避此案不做任何安排。但事实却是，柳井任命了仲裁庭5名仲裁员中的4名，其中包括曾在有关案件中对与中方类似的立场持坚决反对态度的仲裁员。仲裁庭的组成方式明显违反程序正义的要求。

仲裁庭违背和平解决国际争端目的，随意扩权，把手伸向不该管的事。仲裁庭随意解释法律，对明显不具有管辖权的事项强行行使管辖权，肆意扩权，侵犯主权国家和《公约》缔约国享有的权利。

仲裁庭关于管辖权问题的裁决存在大量事实和法律谬误。仲裁庭的表现完全不像是个中立的裁断者，更像是与菲合作反对中方观点的搭档。仲裁庭对菲方的诉求，往往是先预设结论，然后才开始选择性地搜集中方的证据并且无端指责。例如仲裁庭一方面咬定案件本质不是领土主权和海洋划界问题，但却将中菲双方围绕解决领土主权和海洋划界争端进行的谈判和协商作为菲已履行意见交换义务的依据；一方面坚持认定《宣言》不具法律约束力，又将《宣言》作为菲方已经履行交换意见义务的依据等。此外，在岛礁领土地位与领土主权和海域划界问题，以及承诺是否构成拘束力等问题上，仲裁庭引用个别新近作出且具有高度争议性的司法判例证明其观点，却无视更多与其结论相反的国际司法判例，而且缺乏充分的说理，缺乏基本的严肃性。

五、菲律宾南海仲裁案是南海和平稳定的威胁

菲律宾南海仲裁案代表了当前国际关系中一种危险的倾向。个别国家企图把《公约》作为唯一标准，否定包括《联合国宪章》在内国际法所确认的领土主权神圣不可侵犯原则，掩盖自己非法侵占中国南沙群岛有关岛礁的事实。领土主权不可侵犯是国际交往的基本准则和国际法的根本原则，是国际关系稳定的基石。《公约》也明确规定其旨在妥为顾及所有国家主权的情形下，为海洋建立一种法律秩序。《公约》从未赋予一国假借《公约》主张海洋管辖权侵犯他国领土主权的权利。菲律宾单方面提起并强行推进仲裁，以所谓海洋管辖权否定中国对南沙群岛的领土主权，是对尊重主权和领土完整的国际法基本原则的挑衅，动摇了现代国际法和国际秩序的基础。

《公约》规定了包括司法和仲裁在内的争端方式，其根本目的在于定纷止争，从而实现和平解决国际海洋争端的根本目的。菲南海仲裁案仲裁庭随意扩权，将明显不属于其管辖范围的领土和海域划界争议纳入管辖范围，并否定中菲就通过谈判协商解决争议存在共识或相关协议的效力，这不仅加剧了中菲之间的矛盾，而且影响国际和地区海洋秩序的稳定，背离和平解决国际争端的宗旨，破坏各方为达成《公约》所形成的的脆弱平衡，也损害了《公约》的完整性和权威性。

中国和东盟国家经过近10年的艰苦谈判，最终达成《宣言》。《宣言》反映了中国和东盟国家通过谈判协商解决南海争议，通过制定规则管控南海争议，通过务实合作推动互利共赢的共识。《宣言》签署以来，各国依据《宣言》规范本国在南海的行为，积极推动海上务实合作。2013年9月，中国和东盟国家在全面完整有效落实《宣言》的框架下启动“南海行为准则”磋商。可以说，《宣言》已成为中国和东盟国家共同制定、共同履行的地区规范，对所有签署国都有拘束力。菲律宾为了一己私利，无视《宣言》对维护南海和平稳定发挥的巨大作用，肆意否定《宣言》的意义，在仲裁庭面前声称《宣言》仅是各国妥协的产物，没有拘束力，没有发挥作用，严重损害地区和平稳定的政治基础。

菲律宾南海仲裁案是一场披着法律外衣的政治闹剧，既不可能改变“旧格局”，也不可能制造“新现实”。中方的不接受、不承认，不仅是法律上的，也是行动上的。无论仲裁案最终结果如何，中方都不会接受和承认裁决，更不会执行裁决，也决不同意任何国家以此裁决为基础与中方商谈南海问题。菲律宾妄想通过仲裁案否定中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益，抹黑中国的国际形象，不会有任何结果。

In January 2013, the Philippines unilaterally initiated compulsory arbitration proceedings with respect to the disputes with China in the South China Sea. Now the Arbitral Tribunal has rendered the award on the matter of jurisdiction and admissibility, and finished the tribunal hearings of the substantive issues and the outstanding issue of jurisdiction. The Philippines unilaterally initiated the arbitration, disregarding the consensus between China and the Philippines on settling relevant disputes through negotiations and consultations, the solemn commitment of the Philippines in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), and the legitimate rights that China enjoys as a sovereign state and a contracting party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the “Convention”) to independently choose dispute settlement mechanisms and procedures. It abused the compulsory procedures for dispute settlement under the Convention in order to cover up the territorial and maritime delimitation nature of the disputes between China and the Philippines with the so-called “interpretation and application of the Convention”, to use the Convention as a pretext to negate the obligation under the UN Charter to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries, and to mislead the public and defend its illegal occupation of some maritime features of China's Nansha Islands. The act of the Philippines constitutes a gave threat to peace and stability in the region.

I. It is the expansion of the Philippine territory that led to the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea.

The essence of the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea is the territorial disputes caused by the illegal occupation of China's maritime features in the Nansha Islands by the Philippines in the 1970s in violation of the UN Charter.

The islands in the South China Sea have been Chinese territory since ancient times. The successive Chinese governments have exercised jurisdiction over them through administrative management, military navigation, production and operation as well wreck salvage. Japan seized Xisha and Nansha Islands after it launched the war of aggression against China. Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation state in explicit terms that all the territories stolen from China by Japan shall be returned to China. Since the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, China has recovered Xisha and Nansha Islands, and stationed troops and set up various military and civil facilities on the islands. Thus, in terms of both law and facts, China has resumed its sovereignty over these islands in the South China Sea.

The limits of the inherent Philippine territory were clearly set forth by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain in 1898, the Treaty Between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines in 1900, and the Convention Between the United States of America and Great Britain Delimiting the Boundary Between the Philippine Archipelago and the State of North Borneo in 1930. The Nansha Islands and Huangyan Island are not within the scope of the Philippine territory set forth in the above treaties. The Philippine Constitution and laws, including the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines in 1935, the Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines (Revised) in 1968, and the treaty on US-Philippine normal relations signed in 1947 all reaffirmed the scope of the Philippine territory laid down in the above treaties.

Since the early 1970s, the Philippines has pushed for expansionism beyond its inherent territory. Hence, it gradually occupied eight maritime features of China's Nansha Islands. In June 1978, the Philippines issued the Presidential Decree 1596, which unlawfully designated a so-called “Kalayaan Island Group” to encompass some of the maritime features of China's Nansha Islands and claimed sovereignty over them. In 2009, the Philippines revised the Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines and blatantly listed parts of China's Nansha Islands and Huangyan Island into its own territory in an attempt to make its illegal occupation permanent and legalized.

To deny China's territorial sovereignty as well as maritime rights and interests, the Philippines took irresponsible unilateral acts, such as illegal construction, moves aimed at stirring up trouble, oil and gas exploration and detention of Chinese fishermen, to escalate tensions and aggravate and complicate the disputes over the South China Sea between China and the Philippines. After illegal occupation of some maritime features of China's Nansha Islands, the Philippines sought to permanently occupy the Chinese territory and “legalize” the illegal occupation through expansion of the maritime features, construction of military facilities, ports and airports, and establishment of administrative institutions. The Philippines also attempted to further invade and occupy more maritime features of China's Nansha Islands by bombing the signs of Chinese sovereignty and “running aground” an old naval ship at Ren'ai Jiao. The Philippines unilaterally conducted oil and gas exploitation in the disputed waters in the South China Sea and arrested, detained, abused and shot dead Chinese fishermen, in an attempt to impose its claims of maritime rights and interests on the Chinese people and government. On 10 April 2012, the Philippines sent BRP Gregorio del Pilar warship into the adjacent waters of China's Huangyan Island, forcefully harassed the Chinese fishermen and fishing boats conducting normal operation there, treated the Chinese fishermen inhumanely like naked exposure to the scorching sun for a long time, and deliberately triggered the “Huangyan Island incident”.

II. China and the Philippines have chosen to settle their disputes in the South China Sea through negotiation and consultation.

The Chinese government has been all along committed to solving disputes of overlapping claims of territorial and maritime rights and interests through negotiation and consultation in accordance with the international law and on the basis of respecting historical facts. Since the 1960s, China has settled boundary questions with 12 of its 14 land neighbors through negotiations and consultations, delimiting 20,000 kilometers of boundaries, accounting for 90 percent of China's 22,000 kilometers of land boundaries. Besides, China and Vietnam has delimited the maritime boundary in the Beibu Gulf through consultations and negotiations. It is fair to say that this is a perfect example of how New China pursues the independent foreign policy, the policy of good neighborliness and international law. It is also a remarkable achievement made by New China through negotiations and consultations.

Peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiations and consultations is not only China's policy, but also in line with bilateral agreements between China and the Philippines. The following agreements all explicitly state that the two sides will solve territorial and maritime disputes through bilateral negotiation and consultation: Joint Statement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines Concerning Consultations on the South China Sea and on Other Areas of Cooperation (10 August 1995), Joint Statement of the China-Philippines Experts Group Meeting on Confidence-Building Measures (23 March 1999), Joint Statement Between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines on the Framework of Bilateral Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century (16 May 2000), Joint Press Statement Between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (3 September 2004) and Joint Statement Between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines (1 September 2011).

On 4 November 2002, China signed the DOC with the Philippines and other ASEAN countries. Paragraph 4 of the DOC explicitly states that, “The Parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means … through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

III. The South China Sea arbitration case initiated by the Philippines violates international law.

The firm position of the Chinese government to not accept or participate in the arbitration is based on the fact that the arbitration violates basic international law, and aimed to defend and practice international rule of law.

First, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration runs counter to the consensus between the two sides on settling disputes through negotiation and consultation and violates the basic norm of pacta sunt servanda in international law. Consensus has long been reached between China and the Philippines through bilateral documents that relevant disputes should be settled through negotiations and consultations, and the DOC also contains similar stipulations and clearly rules out other means of dispute settlement. The Philippines claims that the documents and the DOC are not binding and other methods of dispute settlement have not been excluded between China and the Philippines. In so doing, the Philippines has completely gone back on its commitment and violated the basic norm of pacta sunt servanda in international law.

Second, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration runs counter to the stipulations of UNCLOS and infringes on China's right to independently choose methods of dispute settlement. China and the Philippines have made the choice and agreed to settle their disputes through negotiations and consultations. Article 280 of UNCLOS stipulates that nothing impairs the right of any States Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by any peaceful means of their own choice. The true intention of the Philippines' initiation of the arbitration is to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests. Territorial disputes concerning islands and reefs should be covered by the general international law and UNCLOS has no jurisdiction over this matter. As for disputes concerning sea boundary delimitation, in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS, China has excluded disputes such as sea boundary delimitation, historic bays or titles and military and law enforcement activities from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of UNCLOS. About 30 countries, including China, Russia, France and the UK, have made similar statements as the one China did. The Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration goes against the agreement long reached between the two sides and violates the right China enjoys as a sovereign state and a State Party to UNCLOS to independently choose dispute settlement mechanisms and procedures.

Third, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration runs counter to the basic legal principles for arbitration. According to the principles of international law, arbitrations should be jointly initiated by parties involved out of their own will. China and the Philippines have already reached the consensus that disputes should be settled through negotiations and consultations and the two countries have long engaged in close communication on settlement of disputes in the South China Sea as well as management and control of the maritime situation there. The two sides have also set up work mechanisms such as the confidence-building experts' group. In 2011, the Philippines even issued a joint statement with China in which it stated its commitment to settling disputes through negotiations and consultations. However, after just one year, the Philippines suddenly put up its disputes with China for arbitration without notifying China beforehand, let alone seeking China's consent. This is nothing but a treacherous act. The Philippines claims that it has exhausted all bilateral means, yet in fact consultations between China and the Philippines have all along focused on resolving and managing territorial and maritime delimitation disputes as well as maritime cooperation. No substantive negotiation has ever been held on the Philippines' arbitral demands.

Fourth, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration is the continuation and development of its territorial expansion and infringes on China's territorial sovereignty. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests are the results of long historical developments. They are left to us by our ancestors and are not up for someone else to decide. China trusted the Paris Peace Conference after WWI and the League of Nations after the September 18 Incident in 1931. But on both cases China was betrayed and as a result lost its Shandong Province and three northeastern provinces. History has taught us that only the Chinese people and government can decide on issues involving territory and sovereignty and no other people, country or institution shall have the right to make such decisions. By initiating the arbitration, the Philippines tries to cover up the fact that it has illegally occupied China's islands and reefs in the Nansha Islands and attempts to legitimize its illegal occupation. This represents a further step in its infringement upon China's territorial sovereignty.

IV. The Arbitration Tribunal has acted like the Philippines' agent.

The Philippines chose to launch the arbitration case when Shunji Yanai, a Japanese national, worked as President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). It is well-known that China and Japan have disputes on territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation in the East China Sea and Japan has been actively interfering in the South China Sea issue. According to the rules of international law and common practice in the world, Shunji Yanai should recuse himself from this case and refrain from making any arrangement. However, He appointed four of the five arbitrators in the tribunal, including arbitrators who were firmly opposed to China's similar positions in relevant previous cases. The composition of the arbitration tribunal is clearly against procedural justice.

The arbitration tribunal, in disregard of the purpose of peaceful settlement of international disputes, has expanded its power at will and reached out to matters beyond its jurisdiction. By explaining the law as it pleases, imposing its jurisdiction on matters that are clearly outside of its mandate and expanding its power willfully, the tribunal has violated the rights of sovereign states and State Parties to UNCLOS.

The tribunal has made a great number of factual and legal mistakes in its ruling on the matter of jurisdiction. Instead of functioning as a neutral judge, the tribunal acts more like the Philippines' partner in countering China's position. The tribunal often set a conclusion first for requests from the Philippines before selectively gathering evidence against China and making unwarranted accusations. For example, the tribunal asserted that the nature of this case is not about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, yet it treated negotiations and consultations between China and the Philippines on settling disputes cover territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation as evidence that the Philippines has fulfilled its obligation of exchanging opinions with China. It declared the DOC not legally binding, while using the document as evidence that the Philippines has carried out its obligation of exchanging opinions. In addition, on issues involving the territorial status of islands and reefs, territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation as well as whether pledges are binding, the tribunal cited some recent and highly controversial judicial rulings to support its point while ignoring international judicial cases whose rulings are categorically different from its own ruling. Furthermore, the tribunal failed to provide necessary reasoning and take the case serious enough.

V. The Philippines' arbitration case is a threat to peace and stability in the South China Sea.

The Philippines' South China Sea arbitration case represents a dangerous tendency in current international relations. Some countries try to use UNCLOS as the only standard and deny the principle that territorial sovereignty is sacred and inviolable established under international law, including the UN Charter. They attempt to cover up the fact that they are illegally occupying China's islands and reefs in the Nansha Islands. Inviolability of territorial sovereignty is the basic norm in international exchanges and a basic principle in international law. It is the bedrock for stable international relations. UNCLOS also clearly stipulates that it intends to build a legal order for the seas and oceans with due regard for the sovereignty of all states. UNCLOS has never given a country the right to violate other countries' territorial sovereignty under the guise of its maritime jurisdiction. The Philippines has unilaterally initiated and pushed ahead the arbitration and used the so-called maritime jurisdiction to deny China's territorial sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. This is a provocation against the basic principle of international law about respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and shakes the foundation of the modern international law and international order.

UNCLOS lays out methods to settle disputes, including judicial and arbitration means, with the fundamental purpose of stopping disputes and peacefully resolving international maritime disputes. In the Philippines' South China Sea arbitration case, the arbitration tribunal has willfully expanded its power and included territorial and maritime delimitation disputes, which are clearly outside of its mandate, under its jurisdiction and denied the binding nature of the consensus and relevant agreements between China and the Philippines on settling disputes through negotiation and consultation. This has not only exacerbated the problem between China and the Philippines, but also affected the stability of regional and international maritime order. This is against the purpose of peaceful settlement of international disputes, undermines the fragile balance reached between different parties for UNCLOS and also harms the integrity and authority of UNCLOS.

After nearly 10 years of difficult negotiations, China and ASEAN countries finally reached the DOC. The DOC reflects the consensus between China and ASEAN countries on resolving the South China Sea dispute through negotiations and consultations, managing and controlling disputes by formulating rules and promoting mutual benefits through practical cooperation. After signing the DOC, countries have regulated their behaviors in the South China Sea in accordance with the DOC and actively promoted practical maritime cooperation. In September 2013, China and ASEAN countries launched the consultation on a code of conduct in the South China Sea under the framework of the full and effective implementation of the DOC. It is fair to say that the DOC has become a regional standard jointly formulated and implemented by China and ASEAN countries and is binding for all the signatories. The Philippines, out of its own selfish interests, has disregarded the tremendous role of the DOC in maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea, willfully denied the significance of the DOC and claimed before the arbitration tribunal that the DOC is only a product of compromise between countries, has no binding force and has not played any role. This has greatly harmed the political foundation for regional peace and stability.

The Philippines' South China Sea arbitration is a political farce under a legal cloak. It can neither change the “old order” nor create a “new reality”. China does not accept nor recognize the arbitration, both in a legal sense and in action. Whatever the ultimate result of the arbitration case, China will not accept or recognize its ruling, let alone implement it. China will never allow any country to negotiate with China about the South China Sea issue based on that ruling. The Philippines dreams about denying China its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests and tarnishing China's image in the world through this arbitration case. Such attempt is doomed to fail.