Is there a Rule of Law in the South China Sea?

Oftentimes, it is verbalized that the rule of law must be observed in the settlement of dispute between claimants at the South China Sea. But is there really such a thing? Is there really a rule of international law? The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS in which China is a signatory has defined the parameters of territorial jurisdiction over waters surrounding a particular state. Adherence to that definition is an obligation by all signatories and befits the respect by the non-signatories to signify oneness with the community of nations. But if a signatory to UNCLOS would turn its back away from a commitment if not an obligation to observe the agreed provisions, what would UNCLOS be? Clearly to deviate from and to dishonor an agreement is a breach that by itself is suppose to be deserving of sanctions imposable against a rogue state. At the point that China trashes the agreement to further its own imperialistic interest is already beyond the comfort of the rules, which is supposed to be the law. In an instance when a state by its unilateral act effectively separated itself from the league of nations and performs offensive actions against other states, uncaring of world opinion and established rules has already rendered itself as contemptuous of conventions, its administrator, its signatories, the UNCLOS,  and the United Nations as a whole by intent and actuation and therefore is deserving to be meted with certain punitive measures. Like any other rules the UNCLOS was created in the interest of justice and fairness. If the rule cannot be enforced upon those who challenge it, then there can never be justice and fairness. If only the weak will abide and submit itself to the jurisdiction of the rules which is supposed to be the law and the strong with impunity would be allowed to continue committing the constraint and prohibition of the rules, then sadly it can only be construed that the rules are meant only to restrain the weak. Rules, laws and conventions are commitments geared to achieve equilibrium, so that the strong may not throw its weight over the weak and to provide the weak the venue for its little voice to be heard, and if need be to rally the force of the world power behind it, not for the latter’s interest alone, but to defend what the world body professes to stand for. 

By the clues of actual events unfolding at the South China Sea, China’s unrestrained reclamations; the building of military mini bases;

 Mabini Reef within Philippine Territory  reclaimed by China and now has the size of an Islet

Used to be Mabini Reef

 the continues extraction of marine life including those that is declared to be endangered; the wanton destruction, scouring, removal and pulverization of coral reefs for chinese industry and pharmacopeia.

Sea turtles endangered specie confiscated from Chinese poachers, there are hundreds of them.

  the intimidation and violent attacks against other claimant ships; 

Chinese Coastguard water hosing a Filipino fishing vessel within Philippine territory

 

Reported Chinese Drilling Rig off the coast of Vietnam

and China’s shameless attempt to alter the status-quo in direct violation again of the Code of Conduct signed by all the claimants has portrayed contraventions that causes the difficulty to convince one’s self that there is indeed a living international law that rules this part of the world. Despairingly, one will be thrown to the thinking that the UN is nothing but a tool of the world powers. One cannot help but regard the world body as inutile by intent, a hypocrite by prejudice and  unmindful of the very foundation upon which it was allegedly built. No! there is no rule of international law in the South China Sea… every man... every nation is to his own.

See also;  http://thefourthperspective.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-philippines-and-real-pillar-of.html