CCTV:

We have seen that after the ruling came out, some countries said the arbitration award is effective and legally binding for both China and the Philippines. I would ask if China doesn't comply with the ruling, these countries would see it as "breaking international law and China will have international reputational cost;" how will China comment on this?

Liu Zhenmin:

Regarding whether the arbitration ruling is legally binding, the Chinese government has stated their position, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated the position; the award has no legal binding, it is void and illegal, and China will not recognize or enforce it. Why is that? In the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the white paper issued today, there are systematical elaborations. Today, I wanted to stress the question whether the arbitration tribunal is a legal international court and my purpose is to tear down the veil of the tribunal.

First, this arbitral tribunal is not an international court, which has nothing to do with the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN) in The Hague, Netherlands. It has a certain relationship with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg but is not part of the Tribunal. The arbitral tribunal was just using the secretary services and the facilities of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), an organizer of arbitral tribunals. It is absolutely not the International Court of Justice, everyone please take note.

Second, this arbitral tribunal's composition is actually the result of a political manipulation. The particular tribunal panel consists of five arbitrators. Except for Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum who was appointed by the Philippines, the other four were appointed by the then president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Shunji Yanai. And who is Shunji Yanai? He is a judge of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the former Japanese ambassador to the United States and also the one to help Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe lift the ban on collective self-defense, challenging the international order formed after World War II. According to various sources, the composition of the tribunal was totally manipulated by him, who later continued exerting his influence during the arbitral tribunal's proceedings.

Third, there are big problems in the tribunal's composition. As you can see, there are five arbitrators. Four of them are from Europe: one is from Germany, one from France, one from the Netherlands and one from Poland. They are all members of the EU. Another judge is from Ghana, former President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, but he lived in Europe for a long time. Can such a tribunal represent anything? Do they know about Asian culture? Do they know about the South China Sea issues? This is the problem that the international community is paying great attention to in past decades. When the United Nations Charter was signed in 1945 and when the UNCLOS was made, one provision asserts that the international court's composition must represent the world's major cultures and major legal systems. When ITLOS was created, there was also such a requirement. Why? This is to make sure the courts will be representative and authoritative. The International Court of Justice has Chinese judges, ITLOS has Chinese judges and even the PCA has Chinese arbitrators. I'm one of the four Chinese arbitrators in the PCA. But this arbitral tribunal has not a single arbitrator from Asia at all, not to mention from China. Do they know Asia? Do they know Asian culture? Do they know the South China Sea issue? Do they know the complicated geopolitics in Asia? Do they know the history of the South China Sea? On what basis can they make a fair award?

Fourth, there's something interesting in the proceedings of the arbitral tribunal, which shocked the international legal community. Some judges held the opinion that made people believe they will maintain China's interests. But during the proceedings, they turned their backs on the academic opinions they once held on to. They had their opinions and standpoints, which altered when they wrote academic papers, different from when they were at the arbitral tribunal. Did they ever have a firm standpoint? Such things also happened to the witnesses used by the arbitral tribunal. One witness said in his writings that Nansha Qundao has at least 12 ocean areas that can be defined as islands, which will claim 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone. But when he stood as a witness in the tribunal, he said that there was no such terrain. What an expert! Pathetically, the tribunal didn't do any investigation, and didn't do any examination but choose to believe his suggestions. Who supported this tribunal? They went there to make money. Who gave orders to them? Who paid them? It was the Philippines or some other countries. This system is totally different from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

The judges of the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea receive their salaries and compensations from the United Nations, to ensure their independence and impartiality. But these five judges of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) are doing it for a profit, and their payments come from the Philippines and probably others, too. We are unsure about the details but they do provide paid services.

That is to say, this case was the first of its kind that led to the establishment of the temporary arbitration tribunal in self-alleged accordance of the Annex VII of UNCLOS. But the operation of this tribunal has exceeded the expectations and anticipations of those who drafted this convention, setting a very bad example. I said this last year that this arbitration case would become an infamous case in the history of international laws.

The performance of this arbitration tribunal also showed that a forced arbitration can hardly be successful; therefore, this arbitration tribunal is a failure. Therefore, could any verdict ruled by this arbitration tribunal carry any validity or credibility? Could it be fair? Some countries say that this verdict has binding power so that the involved parties should implement it. This is a sheer lie. Who would enforce a verdict that has no credibility?

Guo Weimin:

From the content of the decision, the process of the arbitration and the timing of issuing the award, we can tell that the arbitration is not credible. Also, the Filipino government was said to have paid for the arbitration, while China made a declaration of optional exceptions in compliance with the law. All these factors indicated that the arbitration has no credibility at all. Now, let's move on to the next question.