The Hague Tribunal’s ruling in 2016 that upheld the Philippines' maritime claims in the South China Sea has undermined the international rule of law, and is not valid for resolving territorial disputes, said experts.
At an ASEAN summit held on Thursday in Vientiane, Laos, Philippine President Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos Jr. emphasized that the Philippines have abided by the rule of law on the South China Sea issue.
Eight years have passed since the Hague Tribunal's controversial ruling in favor of the Philippines, known as the South China Sea Arbitration Award, a ruling that China strongly opposes and considers illegitimate.
Experts said the Philippines' denial of China's territorial sovereignty over Ren'ai Jiao violates the principle of "the land dominates the sea" under international law.
"The UNCLOS actually came into effect in the early 1980s. And that it came into effect on the presumption that all sovereignty questions were already settled, or were knowingly settled between different nation-states. In other words, UNCLOS does not deal with sovereignty questions," said Warwick Powell, adjunct professor at the Queensland University of Technology.
According to UNCLOS Article 298, state parties have the right to file a written declaration to exclude disputes regarding maritime delimitation or historic bays. By filing a declaration in 2006, China has excluded disputes from compulsory procedures.
Experts said the Arbitral Tribunal violated the principle of state consent, exercised its jurisdiction “ultra vires,” and rendered an award in disregard of the law.
"The way forward for the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines is really diplomacy and political settlement," said Anna Rosario Malindog-Uy, vice president of external affairs of the Asian Century Philippines Strategic Studies Institute.
"You need a format in which the parties in disputes both agree on. Without that, there's no legitimacy," said Powell.
South China Sea Arbitration Award not valid for resolving territorial disputes: experts
Japan's House of Representatives approved a bill to establish a national intelligence committee on Thursday, prompting widespread public questions and concerns. In March, the Japanese government approved a resolution to submit the relevant bill to the Diet, proposing a new intelligence mechanism centered on a national intelligence council with the national intelligence committee serving as its executive body.
According to the bill, the new committee will be tasked with coordinating "important intelligence activities" in areas such as national security and counter-terrorism, as well as "overseas intelligence activities" involving foreign espionage.
The bill also states that the committee's secretariat will "comprehensively coordinate" intelligence work across government ministries and agencies, with the authority to request that they share information.
The bill now moves to the upper house for review.
The bill and a series of reckless moves by the Takaichi administration have fueled deep public concern. Protesters gathered to voice their opposition to the legislation before its passage.
"Right now, the Takaichi administration is trying to drag Japan into war, through actions like promoting weapons imports and exports, provoking China, and failing to offer the apologies it should have made afterward. Against this backdrop, opposition voices are actually quite strong, but these remarks will be regulated. Once such a bill passes, not even opposing voices will be able to speak out. This is something I do not want to see," said a protester.
These grave concerns were widely echoed by other rally attendees, who said they cannot accept a string of radical moves by the Japanese government and the Takaichi administration, including the lifting of the ban on lethal weapons exports and the relentless push to amend Japan's pacifist constitution.
"Takaichi is forcing all of these moves through. Promoting this bill and lifting the ban on arms exports mean heading towards war," said another rally participant.
"I believe amending the Constitution is completely unacceptable. The Constitution is not something that members of the National Diet can revise on a whim, and it should never be revised in the first place," said another protester.
Japanese lower house approves bill to establish national intelligence committee, sparking protests
