Ahead of the verdict, Chinese officials have been saying that the judgement would go against China and the country would not accept it. But Beijing's position is clear: no acceptance, no participation, no recognition, and no implementation.
India has not issued a categorical position on the arbitration case, but has been broadly supportive of the application of global law.
He said China from the beginning has not accepted the tribunal and did not participate in it as it is unilaterally initiated arbitration case which is illegal from the start. China hopes they will be declared "islands" which could legally extend its reach in the South China Sea. Moreover, the Philippines' case is inherently flawed and illegitimated by such irregularities as the country's abuse of the dispute settlement procedures, its distortion of concepts, and its deliberate disguise of the real nature of the disputes.
He said the arbitration case has violated the relevant terms of UNCLOS. The "no arbitration without the existence of a dispute" principle requires that before resorting to compulsory arbitration, there must have existed a real dispute between the parties.
Second, all the claimants to territory in the South China Sea, including the R.O.C., should follow the International Law of the Sea and the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea when asserting their sovereignty claims over the islands and territorial water areas, Huang said.
The Philippines has asked the arbitral tribunal to void China's sweeping claims in the South China Sea, and demanded its right to explore resources in its exclusive economic zone, waters locally known as the West Philippine Sea, be respected.
To China, that's the only way out because as Hong put it: "China will never change its stance".
"Finally, we are engaging China directly to reduce risk..."
Therefore, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration has fallen short of meeting the UNCLOS conditions. Beijing says the court has no jurisdiction and China can not be forced to accept dispute resolution. Thus, when China rejects the Court's decision in this case, it will be doing just what the other great powers have repeatedly done for decades. The first thing they would discover is that no permanent member of the UN Security Council has ever complied with a ruling by the PCA on an issue involving the Law of the Sea.
The public discourse on the arbitration case can not be prevented or silenced.
Out-manoeuvred on the high seas, the Philippines took to the courts in 2013 with a carefully crafted challenge to China under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. More than $5 trillion in trade passes through the South China Sea every year.
Calling the tribunal a "law-abusing farce" with no jurisdiction, and the impending ruling a "piece of trash paper", China has boycotted the entire proceedings.
The territorial dispute over the South China Sea should not be part of a discussion at the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Mongolia at the end of the week, a senior Chinese diplomat said Monday.
"Some of subject matter of the arbitration has been excluded by China from the compulsory arbitration procedures in accordance with UNCLOS", he said.
"The press release will be in English and French, with an unofficial Mandarin Chinese translation provided", Jose said, citing the process of the verdict today. The prerequisite for such negotiations, whether bilateral or multilateral, is the agreement or consent of those countries.
He stressed that there are no moral victories in questions of territorial sovereignty or maritime entitlement and that one can not solve a question of territorial integrity or maritime entitlement exclusively on legal ground.
A defiant China has warned the US not to apply the Monroe doctrine in the South China Sea-hours before an worldwide arbitration panel is to deliver its ruling, sought by the Philippines, on Beijing's maritime claims in these waters.