The dangerous precedents to be set by The Hague

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has announced that a
decision will be made on the South China Sea island dispute filed by the
Philippines unilaterally without the consent of the counter party, China.
Those parties on the side of The Philippines are eagerly rubbing their
hands for a judgment in favour the latter, dreaming that it would favour
their attempts to make claims in the South China Sea against China. The
provocateur or mastermind behind this theatre of course will be smiling in
glee at the puppets fighting among themselves without a clue of what are
in store for them. Have no doubt that the puppets could only see as far
as their nose, and would end up being slapped by the same insidious act they
supported blindly or for short term interests.
The Asean states wanted and are praying very hard that their wishes would
be granted. Let me remind them that before their wishes come true, they
better reflect on the implications of the farcical decision or the
political statement that The Hague is going to make. The case violates many good
principles of law and order governing international relations. In this case
there is an international institution, a court that chose to preside over
a territorial dispute that it has no jurisdiction to hear. And they are
arrogant enough to want to make a judgment despite objections by the
affected party and without hearing its side of the story, ie in
abstentia. This is not about a criminal case or a dispute between citizens
of a country where the court has the legal right to sit and hear the case
and the citizens have no grounds to object. This is an international court
and the parties are sovereign nations that owe no obligation to the court
and could choose to tell the court to lump it. The decision or judgment
thus has no legal standing and is not binding to the party that chose not
to oblige.
How would a decision by The Hague be important to the Asean countries and
other countries of the world? Many countries, including those within Asean,
have territorial disputes with their neighbours. Take the case of the Philippines and Malaysia as an example. If Malaysia were to take the
position that China must abide by the 'judgment' made by the Permanent
Court of Arbitration, would Malaysia also do so should the Philippines,
with the support of the same mastermind, filed a case to claim Sabah
despite Malaysia's objection and refusal to participate should the Hague
ruled that Sabah belonged to the Philippines? This can also apply to
Singapore Malaysia relations when the latter is still harbouring the idea
that Singapore belonged to Malaysia. Likewise, Malaysia could unilaterally,
with the support of the same mastermind, if it behaves well and to the
liking of the mastermind, filed a case to take over the four Muslim southern
states of Thailand. Would Singapore or Thailand abide by the rulings of the
Hague in its decisions when they refused to participate in the hearing and
refused to make their defence?
The Koreans also have island dispute with Japan. China and Russia also have
similar disputes with Japan and so are many other countries. Would any of
these countries fall victims of a similar scam when they offended the
mastermind and have the international court making judgment against their
territories and would they accept the farcical decision?
The Hague decision is going make a very dangerous precedent that would
affect many countries around the world. A big power could connive and bribe
or coerce an international court to judge against any country with or
without their objection or without their participation. Is this what Asean
countries and the world at large think is a good thing, a good way of solving inter state territorial disputes?