Peace Through Law? The Role of the Law of the Sea Convention Put into Question

This comment is a reply to Christian Pogies’ chapter ‘Oceans of Cynicism? Norm-Genesis, Lawfare and the South China Sea Arbitration Case’. The author agrees with Christian Pogies’ definition of cynicism as primarily a question of perspective. Despite the inherent limitations of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in solving underlying sovereignty issues, however, it should neither be considered cynical nor an abuse of the law, nor lawfare when a state triggers the dispute resolution mechanism foreseen by the Convention. While post-colonial criticism of the Convention is partially valid, the treaty still represents a compromise between Western and non-Western states that is reflected in its core norms. On China’s rejection of the arbitral award drawing on such post-colonial criticism, she reminds us that despite what might be considered a problematic genesis, China made the sovereign decision to ratify the Convention and to bind itself to its rules through its consent. She concludes by stressing that despite its imperfections and valuable questions to be raised regarding the genesis and validity of its norms, the Convention on the Law of the Sea remains the primary source for a peaceful order of the ocean.