On July 13, 2020, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a press statement on the South China Sea issue, in which the United States denied China's assertion of "Nine Dash Line" in the South China Sea. Pompeo expressed that China's resources claims in the South China Sea were "totally unlawful". Pompeo's statement on the South China Sea mainly includes the "South China Sea Arbitration" between China and the Philippines. He stressed that the result of the "arbitration" should be complied with. He believed that China's claim on the "Nine Dash Line" has no legal basis.
As for the "South China Sea Dispute" between China and the Philippines, whether the award of the International Arbitration Court is legal or not, and whether it has factual and legal binding force on China's territorial sovereignty of the "Nine Dash Line" or not, we must first understand several issues of international law.
Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands 1.The difference between the International Court of Justice and the International Court of Arbitration 1.1 The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, or the judicial organ of the United Nations (UN), located at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands. It is one of the six major organs and the most important judicial organ of the United Nations. 1.2 The International Court of Arbitration, also known as the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), located at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands. 1.3 The International Court does not have any subsidiary body, while some of international leaders,including US President Barack Obama, misunderstood the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) as a subsidiary body of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), confusing the Permanent Court of Arbitration with the International Court of Justice. (On July 13, 2016, the United Nations website published an information stating that the Permanent Court of Arbitration is not related to the United Nations.) (On 14 July 2016 the (United Nations) International Court of Justice declared that the Permanent Court of Arbitration is not related to the International Court of Justice.) 2.The difference between the functions of the International Court of Justice and the International Court of Arbitration 2.1 The main function of the International Court of Justice is to make legally binding judgments on cases submitted by Member States of the United Nations. More than half of the cases accepted by the Court are territorial and border disputes. The International Court of Justice adheres to the principle of "No Trial without Complaint" and has no right to accept cases on its own initiative. The enforcement requires the intervention and mandatory action of the UN Security Council. 2.2 The main function and authority of the International Court of Arbitration is arbitration (both parties submit to the third party for arbitration) rather than judicial (litigation, etc.). Arbitration is different from litigation and trial. The arbitration requires both parties' voluntariness. It is one of dispute resolution methods in which the parties agree to refer the dispute to a third party and the third party makes a ruling on the dispute. The premise of arbitration is that both parties are willing, and the legal prerequisite is that both parties agree to adopt arbitration. Arbitration must be based on the premise that both parties mutually agree to submit the dispute to Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the arbitration rules (who shall be the arbitrator, what law shall be applied, and how to implement the arbitration result, etc.) shall also be mutually decided by both parties. 3.The South China Sea Arbitration case is the award of the arbitral tribunal established by the International Court of Arbitration The South China Sea Arbitration case, the so-called "Philippines vs. China Case", is an arbitral tribunal set up temporarily by the International Court of Arbitration. The tribunal will be revoked once the case is final. China's attitude towards the provisional arbitral tribunal is to not participate in, accept nor recognize. On July 12, 2016, the International Arbitration Court made a "final award" on the South China Sea Arbitration case and awarded the Philippines "victory". China believes that the award of the Arbitral Tribunal violates the arbitration rules of legal preconditions (both parties must agree to adopt arbitration). China has issued a statement that it shall not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Arbitration in this case and refuses to accept any form of settlement proposal from the Philippines. The award of the Arbitral Tribunal on the relevant issues is invalid and has no factual and legal binding force on China. 4.Content of the award of The South China Sea Arbitration case The International Court of Arbitration made a "final award" on the South China Sea Arbitration case and awarded the Philippines "victory". Content of the award issued by the Arbitral Tribunal: (Abstract) "The arbitration case concerns the status of certain islands and reefs in the South China Sea and the maritime rights that they can generate. In accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Arbitral Tribunal stressed that the award does not award any issues concerning the sovereignty of land territory, nor does it delimit any boundary between the parties. " "The Arbitral Tribunal held that, without demarcation of boundaries, certain marine areas were found to be within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, as they did not overlap with any possible rights of China." "The Arbitral Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the possible consequences of the confrontation between the Philippine navy and the Chinese Navy and law enforcement vessels at the Second Thomas Shoal, since the dispute involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory dispute settlement." "The Arbitral Tribunal held that the matter referred to arbitration by the Philippines did not involve a question of sovereignty. The Arbitral Tribunal held that the consideration of the Philippines' claim does not require an implicit determination of sovereignty issues and that consideration of these issues will not promote any party's claim on the sovereignty of islands in the South China Sea. " The "award" proves that the Arbitral Tribunal only made an award on the Philippines' claims and maritime rights in the Philippines' own exclusive economic zone (Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal and Reed Bank). The Arbitral Tribunal also stressed that it would not determine the sovereignty of Scarborough Shoal. In addition, the Arbitral Tribunal also declared that the root cause of the dispute involved in the arbitration is not that China or the Philippines intend to infringe upon the legitimate rights of the other party, but that the two sides have fundamental differences in understanding their respective rights in the South China Sea Based on the Convention. It can be seen that the content of the ruling has nothing to do with China's territorial sovereignty and historical waters in the South China Sea marked by the "Nine Dash Line" of China's South China Sea territory. Conclusion (1) The International Court of Arbitration tried the South China Sea Arbitration case and its so-called award is in violation of the principle of "State Consent". There were obvious errors in the fact finding and law application. The ruling has no factual and legal binding force over China. (2) The "ruling" only involves the Philippines' claim and the maritime rights of the Philippines' own exclusive economic zone (Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal and Reed Bank). The "ruling" does not involve China's territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea marked by the "Nine Dash Line" of its territory in the South China Sea. (3) The United States knows that many islands in the area of the "Nine Dash Line" are the sovereignty of China's territory. For example, during 1957 to February 1961, U.S. air force personnel stationed in Philippines conducted the charts survey and meteorological investigation in Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands area applied many times to Taiwan authorities, which indicated that the United States actually believed China had the sovereignty over these islands. During the same period, maps and books published in the United States, such as the 1961 edition of the Columbia Gazetteer of the World, the 1963 edition of the Wilder Mike Countries Encyclopedia, and the 1971 edition of the Countries of the World Encyclopedia, all confirmed China's sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea.