Sixth, China should put aside its sovereignty claims and deal with the status quo by respecting international law. This means accepting that there are legitimate maritime zones in dispute between China and regional states. China and other states should refrain from unilateral “sovereignty enforcement” activities.

Seventh, the important injunction by international law is that the states in dispute should enter into provisional arrangements until their dispute is settled, not alter the status quo, and refrain from the threat or use of force. China and other states – without prejudice to their sovereignty claims – should work out the temporary demarcation of maritime zones. If the parties agree they can enter into agreements for fisheries management, joint development of oil and gas resources and search and rescue.

Eighth, China should reconsider its refusal to accept international arbitration. After all a Chinese judge sits on the panel of judges qualified to arbitrate cases under international law. If a Chinese judge is acceptable to foreign states, why can’t China accept foreign judges in its case? There are many regional states, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, that have resolved territorial disputes by international arbitration. China may find that international arbitration is a useful way to settle some of its territorial disputes.

Ninth, while China is acting within its rights in deciding not to participate in the Arbitral Tribunal instigated by the Philippines, China should stop criticizing this process. China’s actions are widely viewed as undermining international law. The Philippines is not directly challenging Chinese sovereignty or the exemptions China announced when it acceded to UNCLOS. China uses UNCLOS as the basis for its baselines, territorial waters, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. All the Philippines is doing, in light of China’s unilateral assertion of sovereignty, is to ask the Arbitral Tribunal to determine if it has the same entitlements under UNCLOS.

Tenth, if the Arbitral Tribunal determines that the Philippines has a case in law and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the issues raised, China should reconsider its decision to boycott the Tribunal’s proceedings. This is important because under UNCLOS the decisions of the Arbitral Tribunal must be enforced immediately and are not subject to appeal. China’s rejection of the Arbitral Tribunal out of hand undermines international law. If China has an indisputable claim to sovereignty, as it repeatedly states, it should argue its case.

If China were to uphold and follow international law, this would assist in transforming territorial and maritime disputes from physical confrontation between China and regional states into a legal confrontation. If China and regional states accept the decisions of an independent arbitrator this will contribute greatly to the goal of making Southeast Asia into a zone of peace, cooperation and development. This is a win-win situation not only form China but the small states themselves.

Carlyle A. Thayer，emeritus professor of the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defense Force Academy, Canberra