Verdict at The Hague

The PCA ruling will test China's assurances of a 'peaceful rise'

Fears of World War III erupting as a result of China's defiant rejection of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) verdict striking down its expansive claims in the South China Sea may be exaggerated. If anything, the unanimous and binding verdict by the international arbitral tribunal at The Hague represents a unique test of the nature of China's emergence as a superpower. Any unilateral military action to defy the verdict now will be explicitly illegal under the terms of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which China is a party. In the world of cynical realpolitik, this may not amount to much. As some analysts have pointed out, the verdict from PCA lacks an explicit enforcement mechanism should China decide to press claims to its "nine-dash line" maritime boundaries encompassing territories in the Philippines and Vietnam. That move could draw regional security guarantor US into military clashes, with all its ominous implications.

It is also true that China may get away with impunity if it chooses to ignore the ruling, especially since none of the other five UN Permanent Security Council members have ever complied with PCA's verdicts. But aspirational superpowers also tread a tricky path in an international community in which rules occasionally count for something. The established power of the other four members - US, France, Russia and the UK - must be weighed against China's emerging status in the global power superstructure. As a rising power, Beijing is unlikely to wilfully risk international credibility by being seen to not observe the rules of the game. Equally, its repeated assurances of a "peaceful rise" would call for restraint, especially ahead of its chairmanship of the G20 summit in Hangzhou in September, the first to be hosted in the country. A Chinese foreign ministry statement that the government intended to fully comply with international law suggests an understanding of the realities of its position. There is also the practical consideration that it is China that stands to lose the most should maritime trade to the South China Sea via its principal outlet, the Straits of Malacca, be closed due to sanctions.

These facts should not, however, preclude the urgent need for some nuanced diplomacy rather than shrill triumphalism by all the parties concerned, principally to enable China to "save face", a core social value in the region. The new president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, has already taken an unexpectedly conciliatory line, expressing willingness for bilateral talks. The European Council president Donald Tusk has also spoken of creating a "positive momentum" in finding a resolution to the dispute, indicating that negotiations were on the table. In that context, India's official statement expressing and urging "utmost respect" for the verdict should be considered unexceptionable, not least because it underlines the country's credibility in light of its acceptance of a PCA verdict in 2014 on a maritime boundary dispute with Bangladesh. These developments are unlikely to have implications for the age-old border disputes with China but the image as a responsible observer of international law can certainly do India no harm.