Turning point in resolving East Sea disputes

“The Arbitral Tribunal's ruling shows that international law still has meaning and power to protect the interests of small countries against big countries.”

Associate Professor Dr. Pham Quang Minh, Rector of the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, commented in an interview with The World & Vietnam Newspaper after the ruling of the Arbitral Tribunal established under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the lawsuit between the Philippines and China.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pham Quang Minh.

How do you assess the significance of this ruling?

In my opinion, the ruling is of historical significance. Because, up to now, the dispute between China and Southeast Asian countries has lasted for a very long time. Although the two sides have had a number of agreements such as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the East Sea (DOC) or the Guidelines for the Implementation of the DOC, they still do not fundamentally resolve the disputes between the parties.

Therefore, the ruling is a huge step forward, which can be considered a turning point towards resolving disputes between parties in the East Sea.

This is the most civilized solution, recognized by the international community. International law is not really respected in some cases, but after all, this is still a peaceful solution to disputes. We are moving towards a society that respects the rule of law. I think the verdict will have a very strong impact on both the plaintiff and the defendant. The lawsuit is a model for other countries in the region to apply and learn from.

So, in your opinion, what will be the attitude and behavior of the Philippines in the future?

I think the Philippines is very happy because when deciding to file a lawsuit with the Arbitral Tribunal, this country also had to consider very carefully the political, economic, security and defense interests. The Philippines knows that they are a smaller country than China, so when initiating a lawsuit, they may have to pay a very high price. China can impose sanctions and in fact, Beijing has done so. It can be affirmed that filing a lawsuit against Beijing with the Arbitral Tribunal is a very brave decision by Manila.

The five-member Arbitral Tribunal established under Annex VII of the 1982 UNCLOS heard the Philippines' case.

At present, the most important thing for the Philippines is how to implement the Court's ruling. This depends a lot on the new President Rodrigo Duterte, who has a more moderate view on relations with China than his predecessor. We are looking forward to how Mr. Duterte will handle relations with China. On the one hand, Mr. Duterte is under great pressure from the people, on the other hand, from the pressure in relations with a big country. Recent times have shown that, despite China's difficulties in economic relations between the two sides, the Philippines still has very good economic development. This fact creates confidence for the leaders and people of the Philippines. Even though the Court only considered 7/15 points, or about half of the requirements, this still shows a great success for the Philippines. That shows that the law still has meaning, international law still has the power to protect the interests of small countries against big countries.

Some people say that the ruling is a testament to the success of small countries in their struggle against big countries. What do you think about this assessment?

This statement is only partly correct. If small countries behave inappropriately or make requests that are contrary to the law, the Court cannot rule in their favor.

Historically, the view that “might makes right” has been true, so many people think that the verdict is a victory for small countries, but in the end, I emphasize that this is a victory for justice and international law. In the current context of globalization, the spirit of the rule of law must be promoted. The law must be respected more than ever by both big and small countries. Big countries must not be allowed to create bad precedents that make small countries feel disappointed or lose hope for a future where the law is recognized.

As for China, up to now, this country has had the stance of not accepting any ruling of the Arbitration Court. How do you evaluate that attitude?

Beijing has not agreed to participate in the case from the beginning, making it difficult for Manila. During the course of the case, Beijing has also warned of the extent of the damage if Manila decides to pursue the case. It has also taken steps to lobby other countries to support its position and oppose the Philippines.

In the period before the Arbitral Tribunal issued its ruling, China used many measures, especially diplomatic measures. They havelist of about 60 countries supporting China's stance. However, in reality, only 8 countries publicly support this country's stance on the East Sea dispute and these are small countries, located far away, not involved in the dispute. That shows that China's stance is not supported by the world.

What is your prediction about China's next actions in the East Sea after the Court's ruling?

I think, first, diplomatically, China has made official statements. Second, China may have a tough response, which means ignoring everything and continuing to assert their position by continuing to build up the entities they have been reclaiming for over a year, at the same time militarizing, establishing an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). Beijing may even withdraw from the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Third, China may try to de-escalate and appease the countries by appearing to comply with the ruling, to please the international community as well as the countries in the region. However, in reality, they are still secretly consolidating the positions they have reformed. In these two scenarios of “hard” and “soft”, in my opinion, China will probably choose the appeasement trend.

So, in your opinion, what is the US's attitude after the arbitration court's ruling on the East Sea issue?

In my opinion, the US is happy with the victory of the Philippines - an ally of itss. Although it did not sign UNCLOS, the most important thing for the US is freedom of navigation and freedom of flight.

With this ruling, the freedom of navigation and overflight of countries is guaranteed because the entities in the East Sea do not have Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) or continental shelves. China's "nine-dash line" map is also invalid. Thus, the US has achieved its own interests and those of its allies.

In the “Pivot” strategy, the US, in addition to ensuring its number one position through freedom of navigation and aviation activities, also wants to protect its allies. This desire is demonstrated through activities such as joint exercises. Maintaining a peaceful and stable regional environment and strengthening cooperation with ASEAN countries are special points in the US strategy. The US has supported the initiatives of small and medium-sized countries and multilateral mechanisms such as ASEAN, so the US is also satisfied with the above ruling.

In your opinion, will the Court's ruling bring China closer to the negotiating table, and together with ASEAN countries, soon come up with a Code of Conduct in the East Sea (COC)?

Perhaps in the long run, China will take this path. However, in the short term, China will not act in this way. It is not easy for a country to change its position, especially one that it says concerns its core interests. Whether Beijing’s response is “hard” or “soft,” I think the core point is to maintain its interests.

Therefore, it will take a very long time for Chinese leaders to change their perceptions and views. At present, Chinese leaders are in an extremely difficult position. Specifically, if Xi Jinping's administration immediately changes its stance, Beijing will lose its position and prestige in the eyes of its own people. However, if the country does not implement the court's rulings, China's prestige in the international arena will decline. But in my opinion, perhaps China's implementation of the ruling can continue to maintain its position both domestically and internationally.

In your opinion, in the coming time, can ASEAN issue a joint statement on the East Sea issue or the ruling of the Arbitral Tribunal?

This depends on two important points. First, at the upcoming ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (AMM) in Laos, ASEAN Foreign Ministers must discuss very carefully to reach a common voice. The spirit of unity and solidarity will create position as well as prestige for ASEAN.

The second factor is the ASEAN Chair 2016-Laos. Although Laos is a small country in ASEAN, it has a certain position and influence, and has close relations with Vietnam and China. The upcoming AMM conference could be an important test, not only for the bilateral relationship between Vietnam and Laos, but also for the solidarity and unity of ASEAN. I believe that Laos will reconcile these two factors.