U.S. would not have been able to contribute as member of the tribunal even if it was a party to UNCLOS
First, while the United States has a strong interest in peaceful resolution of competing territorial claims in the South China Sea, it is not itself a claimant, and thus UNCLOS would provide no additional tools for the United States to use in addressing disputes in the South China Sea. While U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would allow U.S. nationals to serve on arbitration panels, such representatives are expected to exercise independent reasoning and do not take instructions from member governments.
If anything, the presence of an American on the panel would have played to the suspicions of hardliners in China who view international legal regimes as a vehicle for advancing U.S. interests. If this sounds farfetched, consider that the Chinese ambassador to ASEAN recently accused Washington of “staying behind the arbitration case as the manipulator, and doing whatever it can to ensure that the Philippines wins the case.”
Quicktabs: Evidence
Arguments
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
-
Ratification of UNCLOS will neither sway China nor guarantee U.S. navigational rights in the South China Seas any more than continued U.S. naval presence through the Freedom of Navigation program.
Keywords:Related Quotes:- Maritime disputes with China won't be solved by legal wrangling but asserting rights through diplomacy and establishing a pattern of state practice
- Chinese aggressive claims in South China Seas motivated by three strategic goals
- China attempting to use UNCLOS to bind participants to its interpretation of military activities clause, U.S. should not play along
- U.S. Navy's freedom of operation in South China Sea could be more constrained after ratification of UNCLOS
- ... and 10 more quote(s)