SYDNEY, July 25 (Xinhua) -- World powers must be careful of a ruling by the arbitral tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which might also put their own exclusive economic zones (EEZs) 'claims into question.
The tribunal that handled the South China Sea arbitration at the unilateral request of the former Philippine government, which was not sanctioned by the United Nations or the International Court of Justice (ICJ), claimed all features in the South China Sea are mere rocks, not islands, and thus have no rights to an exclusive economic zone.
"By international standards, clearly a number of features in the (Nansha Islands) are fully entitled to island (status)... (but) the court has ruled against that.. ignoring academic writings that support the view that there were true islands in the (Nansha Islands)," retired Royal Australian Navy Commodore, now professorial research fellow at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS), Sam Bateman recently told Xinhua.
"That's the part of the ruling that I think will cause a lot of ongoing angst."
"There's going to be a lot of discussion on that aspect, particularly in terms of its implication for other similar features around the world."
If the ruling was ever to be followed as a precedent for international law, the United States, Australia and others would find it hard to defend their own exclusive economic zones (EEZs) that they too claim over questionable features.
"Japan has already come out and pointed out this ruling from the PCA only applies to the Philippines and China," Bateman said, as Japan's uninhabited Okinotori Shima atoll would only be given a territorial sea if the ruling was followed.
"(Okinotori Shima) is just a couple little rocks on the reef, and (Japan) have claimed a full EEZ around them."
After the award was issued on July 12, some Western countries such as the United States and Japan were eager to urge China to "comply with the obligation under the award."
China has challenged the arbitral tribunal's authority, saying that the constitution and operation of the tribunal, established by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), lacks legitimacy and representativeness, and therefore its award completely void and with no-binding force.
To the arbitral tribunal's great embarrassment, on July 13, the United Nations declared that it has nothing to do with this makeshift panel, and then the International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ) said they are two totally different organizations.
