Zhang Xinjun, associate professor of Tsinghua University school of law, pointed out that according to the proceedings of law, the Philippines had made obvious mistakes in the application of dispute settlement processes of the general international law and the Convention.

First, sovereignty of islands is not related to interpretation of application of the Convention. State parties should not submit arbitrations in the procedure of the Convention. Second, Article 298 of the Convention gives the state parties right to rule out a dispute of the maritime demarcation from the judicial process under the Convention. Based on the rules above, the Chinese government proclaimed to rule out the dispute in 2006.

As a state party of the Convention, the Philippines shall be bound by the term and shall not submit the arbitration unilaterally. The Philippines' litigation act aims to distort and cover the essence of the South China Sea dispute, and then attempt to solicit international sympathy.

However, from a practical point of view, only peaceful bilateral negotiations and consultations can effectively resolve the disputes of territorial sovereignty and maritime demarcation. Unnecessary provocation will only increase the difficulty of solving the problem.

Tsinghua University professor Jia Bingbing said that in the international judicial or arbitral proceedings, judicial or arbitral bodies need to consider the admissibility of the case. Request for arbitration on the Philippine side faces such problems.

In the Convention, the first paragraph of Article 281 provides that "If the States Parties which are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention have agreed to seek settlement of the dispute by a peaceful means of their own choice, the procedures provided for in this Part apply only where no settlement has been reached by recourse to such means and the agreement between the parties does not exclude any further procedure."

The request for arbitration on the Philippine side obviously does not meet the conditions above, and thus the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

First, there is an "agreement" between China and the Philippines in this case. The content is that they shall solve dispute through consultation and negotiation when it is related to the South China Sea territorial sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction. The agreement is based on Article 4 of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea signed by ASEAN and China in 2002; the Joint Press Release of China and the Philippines issued by their heads of state in 2004 and the Joint Statement of China and the Philippines issued by their heads of state in 2011.

Second, contrary to what the Philippines said, negotiation about arbitration as raised by the Philippines has never started between China and the Philippines. China has invited the Philippines several times to establish a consultation mechanism on the maritime issues, but has been ignored.

The Philippines plays a substitution trick here. At last, Article 4 of the Declaration does not contain any expression or implication that allows any party to accept any other solutions. In fact it rules out the possibility of other solutions. In summary, "the Philippine appeal" does not apply to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 281, and therefore the tribunal can not exercise jurisdiction in this case.

Qu Xing, director of China Institute of International Studies, indicated that the Philippines knows it for sure that the result of the so-called arbitration will not necessarily be favorable to it, nor will it have any impact on China, nor cause any change to the actual marine control in favor of it. That the Philippines insists on submitting to the arbitration comes from three considerations.

First, it wants to influence the public opinion and put pressure on China through international community; Second, it can divert the domestic public's attention from the embarrassing situation caused by the huge failure of its reckless provocation at Huangyan Island; Thirdly, it, by initiating the arbitration, seeks to stir and hype the South China Sea dispute and reap illegal profits.