China’s rejection of arbitration ‘in line with international law’

In remarks posted on the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s website yesterday, the ministry’s Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law, Mr Xu Hong, issued a vehement defence of its decision not to participate in the case brought by the Philippines at the United Nations tribunal last year, saying it was not a peaceful means of settling disputes.

Emphasising that China’s rejection of the arbitration was in line with international law, Mr Xu yesterday also said China and the Philippines had previously agreed to settle territorial disputes through negotiations.

“States have at their disposal many ways of resolving disputes peacefully. The most important and preferred means is direct negotiation between the state parties to a dispute, rather than arbitration,” he said in response to a question from the state-run Xinhua news agency on whether China’s non-participation in what has been described by some as a peaceful means of dispute settlement was unconvincing.

“Under international law, it is the sovereign right of the states concerned to choose a means of dispute settlement. Arbitration is only one of the means and it must be based on the principle of consent. In a bilateral dispute, if one party does not accept or participate in arbitration, the other party shall not institute arbitration against its will,” Mr Xu added.

He hit out at the Philippines for unilaterally initiating its case, calling it a “clear abuse of the compulsory procedures” provided for by the tribunal, which operates under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

“By refusing to accept or participate in the arbitration initiated by the Philippines, China is defending its sovereign right to choose a means of dispute settlement of its free will. Our decision is an exercise of the rights we enjoy under international law and is well founded on international law,” he said.

Mr Xu said China had considered several factors, including that the essence of the Philippines’ claims went beyond what it said was the scope of UNCLOS. It also charged that by breaching the agreement to settle the issue through negotiations, the Philippines had violated international law.

“By unilaterally submitting the dispute to arbitration, the Philippines has breached the agreement between the two states and violated international law,” it said. Agencies