With no respect for the basic historic facts, the arbitration over the South China Sea unilaterally filed by the Philippines violates international law, said a host of veteran experts at a seminar in the Hague on Sunday, adding that amid such circumstances, any verdict made by the Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea will be invalid.

At the seminar, more than 20 experts on international law and diplomacy from China, the Netherlands, the US, Italy, the UK and India discussed the legitimacy of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)'s Arbitral Tribunal established at the unilateral request of the Philippines to assess the South China Sea issue.

Experts present at the seminar proved the islands in the South China Sea have been China's territory since ancient times with various historical evidences and from different perspectives.

China was the first country to discover, name and develop these islands. China's sovereignty and related rights and interests over the islands, which have been kept by each Chinese government, were formed over the course of history, according to the experts, citing sufficient evidence.

The Chinese governments have administered the islands in the South China Sea and their adjacent waters through setting administrative divisions, military patrols and salvages at sea, they pointed out.

Hu Dekun, Dean of Wuhan University's China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies believes that respect to historical facts is a crucial principle of international law. But the Philippines, which shows no respect for historical facts and filed the arbitration, has violated international rules, he added.

The arbitral tribunal on the South China Sea will have no legal validity, said Liu Huawen, assistant director at the Institute of International Law affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, explaining that the tribunal has no right of jurisdiction nor arbitration over the case at all.

He further explained that the arbitration filed by the Philippines does not conform with the facts, international law nor its rule of application. Such a case not only goes against the interests of China, but also those of all the countries from a long-term and historical point of view.

If the Arbitral Tribunal comes to a conclusion that does not conform with the facts and law, the same logic could be misapplied to other countries that have territorial disputes, he added.

“We oppose the abduction of international laws in the name of laws,” Liu stressed.

The same point of view was also expressed by Tom Zwart, a law professor at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, who holds that the arbitration over the South China Sea applied unilaterally by the Philippines should be dismissed.

The temporary tribunal could bear partiality, said Zwart, adding that the tribunal will cause great harms to the authority of international law and the reputation of international judicial organs.

To maintain its legitimacy, international judiciary organs should technically adopt neutral and objective legal principles to facts, said Zwart. For disputes unsuitable to judicial settlement, for example the South China Sea issue, the court should avoid rendering an award.

In his opinion, the geopolitical significance of the South China Sea as the essential trade route for half of global commodities is precisely the reason why relevant disputes should be resolved through political approaches.

“The tribunal lacks the authority and sufficient practical experience in settling international disputes, especially those over territory and maritime interests,” said Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju, special adviser in Qatar’s Attorney-General office, , adding that it was not wise for the Philippines to unilaterally submit the issue to the PCA.

Andrea Gioia, an international law professor with the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia told the People’s Daily that the series of bilateral documents and Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) signed by both China and the Philippines have stipulated the consensus between both sides to resolve relevant disputes through negotiation.

Such a consensus also constitutes the “agreement” set in Article 281 of the UNCLOS and excludes third-party settlement procedures.

“The tribunal holds that there is no ‘agreement’ between China and the Philippines on dispute settlement because their bilateral documents and the DOC have no legal binding force. This is a misinterpretation of the concept of ‘agreement,’ which goes against the common meaning of the legislative spirit of relevant UNCLOS articles,” Gioia explained.

“The tribunal has great limitations in settling international disputes and its impartiality has been widely criticized. Sometimes it will even create a series of new problems on top of the land and sea territory disputes,” said Gioia.

“If you want to invite people to sit together, you would greet them with tea, instead of swords,” said Zwart, stressing that only a legitimate judicial verdict can be executed.

A verdict can hardly be carried out if one or multiple concerned parties question its legitimacy. “By saying so, I am advising international judicial institutions to think twice before delivering an unpopular ruling,” he said.

The seminar was held by Wuhan University's China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies and Leiden University's Grotius Center for International Legal Studies.