Japan has warned China, demanding that China must accept the South China Sea arbitration ruling! On July 12, according to Japanese media reports, Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi claimed that the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal's decision was final and legally binding, and both disputing parties must abide by it. As clearly stated in the arbitral award, China's expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea have no basis under "international law." China's refusal to accept the arbitral ruling violates the principle of international law—resolving international disputes peacefully—as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and "undermines" the international rule of law order.
Motegi stated that attempts to unilaterally alter the status quo in the South China Sea through force or coercion continue and are intensifying, a development Japan strongly opposes. The South China Sea shipping routes are vital lifelines for Japan’s energy supplies and international trade. Japan is a major stakeholder in the South China Sea issue and will continue to closely monitor developments there. Clearly, Japan’s response presents itself as especially compliant with international law.
However, we must ask: How does Japan claim to uphold international law when it forcibly defines two tiny rocks—exposed for less than 10 square meters after high tide—on Okinotorishima as an "island," thereby attempting to claim tens of thousands of square kilometers of exclusive economic zone and continental shelf? What international law is Japan following? Furthermore, the South China Sea dispute is a regional conflict between China and ASEAN coastal states—what possible connection does Japan have? Who exactly is Japan’s “major stakeholder”? Has Japan’s merchant shipping ever been obstructed in the South China Sea?
The South China Sea arbitration was procedurally flawed and its outcome riddled with errors—the tribunal itself had no jurisdiction to arbitrate such matters. Why should we accept such a result? Japan’s so-called "lifeline anxiety" is merely a manufactured pretext, fundamentally aimed at provoking new confrontations under the guise of maritime navigation rights. Of course, Japan’s ambitions and designs have already aroused our utmost vigilance. We would caution Japan: while loudly preaching about international law, it must first comply with it—do not dare to tread down the path of militarism. Otherwise, serious consequences will inevitably follow.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1870515507654027/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.