Also, the dispute resolution mechanisms of UNCLOS work on the premise of settled land boundaries from where territorial waters, exclusive economic zones or continental shelves are measured. In cases involving maritime disputes with unsettled territorial boundaries, UNCLOS' dispute settlement mechanism has to rely on customary laws that call for investigating historical evidence from both sides. But the ruling quashes China's historic claims.

Even if UNCLOS were the valid framework to resolve the dispute, China had submitted a "reservation" notification emphasizing its opposition to the dispute resolution mechanisms of UNCLOS, especially Article 298.

Many see India's response to the ruling as supportive of some Western countries. To be fair, India's response has been rather broad and generic; it has not named China directly and leans heavily on high moral principles, and order and peace. The opening line from New Delhi in response to the arbitral ruling says it has "noted" the judgment, but it does not say India welcomes it. India has only said, "states should resolve disputes through peaceful means", which puts equal onus on China and the Philippines.

Indeed, the follow-up statements from Washington have been closer to New Delhi's suggestions to exercise restraint and hold dialogue, which is the direction Beijing seems to have taken. India's response is also guided by its material interests as it sought to underline how "sea lanes of communication passing through the South China Sea are critical for peace, stability, prosperity and development". The coming visit of Minister of Public Security Guo Shengkun to New Delhi should provide an opportunity for both sides to ensure that this episode does not further derail China-India ties.

The author is a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.