by Noah Feldman (Bloomberg) An worldwide court docket guidelines that China broke the legislation by constructing islands within the South China Sea.

China doesn’t care. 

Does that make worldwide legislation a joke? The reply is sure and no.

International legislation isn’t the command of a sovereign backed by the specter of pressure. It normally can’t pressure international locations to obey its dictates and selections. That makes it completely different from home legislation.

But worldwide legislation nonetheless issues. The choice in opposition to China by a Hague tribunal for violating a treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, capabilities as a sort of early warning signal for a way different international locations on the earth take into consideration China’s militaristic growth. The choice is helpful not solely to the Philippines, which introduced the case, however to all of the international locations who’ve overlapping maritime pursuits with China within the Pacific — together with the United States, which supplies safety to most of them.

Paradoxically, the choice by the Permanent Court of Arbitration additionally helps China, though it misplaced. The judgment helps the Chinese perceive that its efforts to create authorized arguments for regional growth have failed. That in all probability received’t persuade China to cease increasing. But it can give Chinese leaders a clearer sense of the resistance they’re going to face in the event that they achieve this – and extra details about the prices that resistance will impose on them.

China isn’t alone in flouting worldwide tribunals that it doesn’t like. In 1986, the U.S. refused to take part in a case introduced in opposition to it by Nicaragua within the International Court of Justice for financing insurgent Nicaraguan contras. The U.S. first appeared earlier than the worldwide court docket to argue that it had no authority to listen to the case. When the U.S. misplaced that argument, it went residence with out even mounting a protection. Then it ignored the verdict.

Being ignored by a superpower didn’t rob the worldwide court docket of its authority. It merely reminded observers that the tribunal’s capacities had been restricted. Nor did the defeat delegitimize the U.S. in worldwide proceedings. The U.S. was just too necessary, and the sanctions for ignoring a global court docket choice had been too minimal, to have an effect on it meaningfully.

Similarly, ignoring the decision of a tribunal created pursuant to the law-of-the-sea treaty received’t take China out of the broader sport of worldwide legislation. China participates in all kinds of worldwide authorized establishments, and you’ll count on that participation to proceed. Although China will face criticism for flouting worldwide legislation, nobody desires China to decide out of the worldwide legislation system the place its participation is useful, for instance within the World Trade Organization. So there might be a restrict to the diploma of criticism that China faces.

The tribunal’s credibility shouldn’t be as excessive as it could have been had China participated within the case, to make sure. But the tribunal will nonetheless get respect insofar as different international locations within the Pacific area will be anticipated to quote its judgment repeatedly and loudly.

The worth of the decision is to sign a global consensus that China’s island-building can’t be taken critically as a part of its broader claims to expanded maritime jurisdiction within the South China Sea.

China has claimed sovereignty over all of the seas included inside a line that seems on its maps. The line’s historical past is telling as an exemplar worldwide claims. It was first created by the Republic of China in 1947, earlier than China’s nationalists had been defeated by the Communists. At the time, the declare wouldn’t have troubled the U.S. Now, in fact, assertions of broader Chinese sovereignty deliver China into battle with allies whom the U.S. has treaties promising safety.

The punchline of the tribunal’s judgment was a frank rejection of the authorized significance of the road. That tells China that the remainder of the worldwide neighborhood isn’t going to budge. Countries who declare territorial waters that overlap with China’s claims will use the tribunal’s judgment in urgent the U.S. to defend them, and in defending their very own area.

China can proceed to bluster at these neighbors. It may even preserve constructing islands, until somebody tries to cease the method.

But China now is aware of that there might be no softening of the response from its neighbors – or from the U.S.

All this data may very well be gotten by a method aside from a global tribunal. But consider what that different mechanism could be. It would require a collection of more and more belligerent acts by China and more and more belligerent responses. That could be pricey to all events, and will by chance set off hostilities.

International legislation is a mechanism for speaking data exterior using pressure. That’s priceless to all events. As Winston Churchill as soon as put it, it’s all the time higher to “jaw, jaw” than to “war, war.” International legislation isn’t the identical factor as home legislation. But speaking is healthier than capturing.

Noah Feldman, a Bloomberg View columnist, is a professor of constitutional and worldwide legislation at Harvard University and the writer of six books, most just lately “Cool War: The Future of Global Competition.”
©2016 Bloomberg News