China claims 2016 arbitral ruling not affirmed by recent ITLOS opinion
China has opposed the Philippines’ belief that the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) legitimizes the latter’s claim over the West Philippine Sea.
Mao Ning, spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, said that the advisory opinion, which basically sets that countries have responsibility to protect their marine environment within their jurisdiction, only “focuses on climate change response and marine environment protect.”
It “doesn’t cover issues of territorial and maritime disputes or the validity of arbitral award on the South China Sea,” she added.
On May 25, the Philippine government welcomed the ITLOS' opinion that pertained to the two concerns raised by a commission of small island states. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) said the body's response validated the 2016 Arbitral Ruling on the South China Sea.
According to DFA, the opinion "bolsters and reinforces the legitimacy of the final and binding 2016 Arbitral Award, and its unassailable status as part of the corpus of international law."
"The Philippines therefore takes this opportunity to reiterate its continuing call for full compliance with the Award," DFA added.
Mao said the opinion should not be used by some country for their supposed "selfish gains" as it just bears on the overall interest of the international community.
"We believe that neither ITLOS or any other country would want to see the advisory opinion being distorted by that illegal, null and void award," Mao said.
"Any hypes that seek to mislead the public will fail. They will not turn the null and void award into a legal one, nor could they ever weaken China’s firm resolve to defend our territorial integrity and maritime rights and interests," she added.
Mao maintained China's position over the South China Sea, including the West Philippine Sea, albeit unilateral and illegal.
She also said that the 2016 Arbitral Award is illegal, null and void as it supposedly "does not constitute part of international law."
"Instead it has had an adverse impact on the international rule of law," Mao claimed.