South China Sea ruling - increased risk of conflict?

[Robert]

Today's Guardian:

The possible trigger for such an escalation is China’s refusal to accept the authority and jurisdiction of the UN court, and its instant rejection of its findings, despite the fact Beijing is a signatory of the UN’s convention on the law of the sea, which the court oversees, and is a permanent member of the UN security council. This attempt by Beijing to cherry-pick which treaties and rules it follows poses a significant challenge to the supremacy of international law and the UN system, of which it, in theory, is a key guardian. Its supporters will argue it is only following the US example.

 

[Kesa]

I have mixed feelings about this. China has rejected the findings of the hearing but I am not sure that is a bad thing. I believe China is the next superpower that will genuinely challenge the US in a way Russia never did. Is it ethically correct to deny an emerging superpower rising to prominence? If this was the US instead of China would the US obey the UN? Probably not. Why should the US be the only superpower?

 

[JoBBo]

I have mixed feelings about this. China has rejected the findings of the hearing but I am not sure that is a bad thing.

It is certainly not a good thing. But in the absence of behaviour you prefer, a reaction that you predicted and expected seems like the next best thing.

I believe China is the next superpower that will genuinely challenge the US in a way Russia never did. Is it ethically correct to deny an emerging superpower rising to prominence?

The only way to at least delay this would be to inflict severe economic harm on China which is unlikely to happen given how intimately intertwined the American and Chinese economies are.

If this was the US instead of China would the US obey the UN? Probably not. Why should the US be the only superpower?

It´s called "American Exceptionalism"