The final award of the South China Sea arbitration that the Philippines unilaterally initiated is expected to be announced in June or July. Given the Arbitral Tribunal's preferential stance to the Philippines, the final award is highly likely to be unfavorable to China. How the arbitration will influence the South China Sea situation is worth exploring.

Judging from the current situation, the overall situation is against China's strategic interests. Some are concerned that other South China Sea claimants such as Vietnam, may follow the Philippines and initiate arbitration against China. This may happen. Former Vietnamese prime minister Nguyen Tan Dung claimed earlier that "like all countries, Vietnam is considering various defense options, including legal actions in accordance with the international law" to resolve its dispute with China. Although some scholars, after detailed research on Vietnam, suggest that despite Dung's comments, the nation is unlikely to take extreme actions against China, Vietnam's policy-making is based on its domestic situation and legal actions remain an option for Hanoi.

Therefore, it is of vital importance for China to take precautionary actions, and be prepared for any negative aftereffects of the South China Sea arbitration. While China has already reiterated its position of not accepting or participating in the arbitration no matter what the outcome is, Chinese scholars on international law still need to clarify the legal basis of the unlawfulness of the Arbitral Tribunal and its final award, as a short-term response to the arbitration.

The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration concerns territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. While territorial sovereignty goes beyond the scope of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), disputes concerning maritime delimitation have already been excluded from the compulsory arbitration and other compulsory dispute settlement procedures through a declaration China made in 2006 pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS. It follows from the above that the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no competence of jurisdiction over the Philippines' case from the very beginning.

In the long run, China should assess the influence of Annex VII of UNCLOS on the country. Stefan Talmon, the director of the Institute of Public International Law at the University of Bonn, earlier advised that denouncing UNCLOS remains an option for China if the tribunal's final award undermines China's sovereignty. Talmon's suggestion is practicable from the perspective of law, and China is legally entitled to denounce UNCLOS. However, Chinese policy-makers should take the public opinion, economic and political factors into consideration before making any decision.

At present, denouncing UNCLOS would bring more harm than benefits to China. It would have a tremendous effect on China's ties with the third world coastal countries. However, if extreme situation, where the majority of other South China Sea claimants follow the Philippines and initiate arbitration against China, occurs, China could consider Talmon's suggestion. In the long term, denouncing UNCLOS would protect China from harassments from other South China Sea claimants. But I believe Beijing has the diplomatic wisdom to persuade concerning sides to settle the disputes through direct dialogues instead of extreme actions.

There is no need to be too worried about the arbitration given the current situation in the Philippines. Rodrigo Duterte, the hard-liner mayor of Davao City, has won the presidential election. Compared with his predecessor, Duterte is more practical in dealing with the Beijing-Manila relationship. He suggested earlier settling the disputes with China via direct negotiations and proposed the principle of shelving differences and conducting joint development in the South China Sea. His election will be helpful to Sino-Philippine political negotiations and is thus good news for the peace in the South China Sea.

The Arbitral Tribunal's abuse of power will backfire, which will put the effectiveness and authority of UNCLOS under suspicion. China should demand a rectification of UNCLOS. China is also advised to put more efforts to explain to the international community that freedom of navigation is never a problem in the South China Sea. Some parties are worried that China's nine-dash line excluded them from the activities in the relevant waters. More explanations from China may alleviate the above concerns.

The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Liu Jianxi based on an interview with Luo Guoqiang, a professor from the Institute of International Law at Wuhan University. liujianxi@globaltimes.com.cn