“Archipelagic Spratlys”: China’s Desperate Attempt to Preserve Expansionist Policy?

Abstract

L.Vuving wrote: "By clarifying the legal status of most of the South China Sea, the ruling goes a long way in shedding light as to which actions were lawful and unlawful."2 He concluded, In one stroke, a tribunal verdict has shifted the strategic landscape in the South China Sea. The ruling puts an end to the age of ambiguity that has characterized the game nations have been playing in the South China Sea for decades. It also creates the conditions for a more binary configuration of how states line up on the issue. Although the tribunal has no army to enforce its verdict, its decision has legitimacy. And those who directly benefit from the ruling will try their best to make it enforceable.3 On 12 July 2016, The Hague-based ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal that was constituted 3 years earlier in 2013 under Part xv and Annex vii of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos) issued its ruling on the merits of the case The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines vs. The People's Republic of China).4The Tribunal invalidated China's claim for historic waters in its 9-dash line map.5 It likewise clarified the character of the relevant features in the Spratlys 1 The opinions expressed herein are the author's personal views and do not in any way represent the views of his Institution. 2 Alexander L. Vuving, Professor at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies https:// thed iplo mat.com/ 2016/ 07/ why-the-south-china-sea-rul ing-is-a-game-chan ger/ . 3 Ibid. 4 The members of the Arbitral Tribunal were Judge Thomas A. Mensah (President), Judge Jean Pierre-Cot, Judge Stanislaw Pawlak, Prof. Alfred Soons, and Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum. Details and materials on the case may be accessed at www.pca-cpa.org/ en/ cases/ 7/ .