Why does China not participate in the case?

China has stated it will never ever accept any imposed solution or unilateral resorting to a third-party settlement on issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.

Zeng explained that territorial issues are subject to general international law, not the UNCLOS.

Regarding maritime delimitation, it falls within the scope of the declaration filed by China in 2006, which excludes disputes concerning maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration and other compulsory dispute settlement procedures, he said.

However the Philippines has packaged its claims, the essence of the arbitration is still disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime interests, said Zeng.

Moreover, China and the Philippines have agreed in bilateral documents and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea to settle their disputes through negotiation.

"By unilaterally initiating the arbitration, the Philippines has violated its agreements with China, which is dishonorable and a contravention of its international obligations to China," according to Zeng.

"What the Philippines did is illegal, untrustworthy and unreasonable. The so-called 'award' is not binding," said Li at the CASS.

Is the arbitral tribunal authoritative and impartial?

The arbitral tribunal has illegally overstepped its area of authority, said Xiao Jianguo, deputy director-general of the Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

"The arbitral tribunal has actually become an agent of the Philippines," Xiao said, calling it "a castle in the air."

Li said that as a state party to the UNCLOS, it is necessary to clarify that China is not opposed to international law including the UNCLOS, but to the arbitral tribunal abusing its power.

Is the arbitration a simple legal case?

The arbitration is not a simple legal affair but "a political provocation under the cloak of law," said Xu.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in March that the Philippines' stubbornness is "clearly the result of behind-the-scenes instigation and political maneuvering."

Several high-ranking U.S. officials have publicly voiced support for the Philippines' move.

Deputy Director of the Chinese Society for Oceanography Zhang Haiwen said that the South China Sea issue became a hot spot since the United States adopted its "pivot" to Asia strategy.

In the context of geopolitics, the arbitration case cannot be treated as a simple legal affair, according to Zhang.

Is China's stance of not recognizing and not implementing the award against international law?

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has stated over and again that China will not recognize or implement the award whatever it might be.

Neither will China accept any country's attempt to use such an award as a basis for bilateral consultations on the South China Sea issue, nor will it accept any positions or activities proposed and conducted by any country based on such an award, it said.

The so-called "award" made by a tribunal that has no jurisdiction from the very beginning "obviously has no legal effect at all, therefore there is no such thing as implementation," said Ma at CUPL.

"Some people simply cannot wait to jump out and ask China to observe and implement the ruling result even before it is released. I cannot help asking what kind of result they want China to implement," said Xu.

"If the arbitral tribunal just states some legal views on abstract issues not in connection with territorial sovereignty or maritime boundary delimitation, then there will be at most those opinions for us to notice but nothing to implement. If it plans to utilize this award to contain China's sovereign claim or actions in the South China Sea, this move will only testify to the arbitral tribunal's excess of power, so how can the award be valid?" he asked.