53 Maritime Law Enforcement and the Aggravation of the South China Sea Dispute: Implications for Australia David Letts, Rob McLaughlin and Hitoshi Nasu * I. Introduction The ruling in the South China Sea Arbitration, 1 which was issued on 12 July 2016 by an Arbitral Tribunal (the Tribunal) constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 2 has resulted in wide-ranging media coverage, a plethora of political statements as well as being the subject of seemingly incessant academic comment. In relation to the statements which have been made by Australian politicians following the Merits Award, the issue of deciding precisely what Australia’s operational, political and legal approach should be towards the various legal aspects that are in play in the South China Sea has become the subject of contested views between the major political parties as well as creating divisions within these parties. 3 These views will likely continue to provide a source of difference and dissent across the political spectrum in Australia, and in some cases these differences will be for reasons which are divorced from the key legal principles which are involved. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider in this short paper what these legal issues are, and assess the implications that might arise for Australia from the maritime law enforcement activities which have been undertaken thus far in the South China Sea, as well as giving consideration to some likely future events. Ultimately, continued (and heightened) aggravation between the various territorial claimants in the South * Co-Directors, Centre for Military and Security Law, The Australian National University. 1 South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v China) (Award) (UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal, Case No 2013-19, 12 July 2016) (‘Merits Award’). 2 Opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3 (entered into force 16 November 1994) (‘UNCLOS’). 3 The official Australian government response to the ruling was released on 12 July 2016, see Minister for Foreign Affairs, ‘Australia supports peaceful dispute resolution in South China Sea’ (Media Release, 12 July 2016) <http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2016/jb_mr_160712a.aspx?w=tb1 CaGpkPX%2FlS0K%2Bg9ZKEg%3D%3D>. Subsequent media reports provide conflicting views between (and among) the major Australian political parties regarding precisely what approach should be adopted by Australia. See, eg, Rashida Yosufzai, ‘Shorten Denies South China Sea Change’, news.com.au (online), 17 September 2016 <http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/shorten-denies-south-china-sea- change/news-story/0f5948cd7f51114ffbbe7a5c87e5909e>; Troy Bramston, ‘Paul Keating Lets Fly at Labor over South China Sea’, The Australian (online), 11 October 2016 <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/paul-keating-lets-fly- at-labor-over-south-china-sea/news-story/f64662b0c95dc3e98f748644cc109e99>.