The once anticipated expansive maritime entitlements of numerous small maritime features have now been determined to possess nothing greater than a 12 nautical mile territorial sea. Now, all of the claimants in the South China Sea should be able to step back and reassess how they view the region both diplomatically and peacefully.

China believes that it can cultivate a relationship with the U.S. based on peaceful co-existence. However, the South China Sea is proving a collision point between U.S. hegemony and Chinese interests in safeguarding its own security and development.

It is good to see the US side has demonstrated a degree of constructiveness regarding China-US relations. After Washington’s failed interference in the “arbitration” case, the US should recognize that cooperation leads to win-win, and confrontation is a formula of lose-lose.

Rather than focusing on the nominees’ rhetoric, Professor Timothy Webster explores their actions vis-à-vis China and the international economy during their respective careers. Whoever wins in November, the next administration will likely enact a China policy stressing economic engagement, person-to-person interaction, and cooperation on a wide range of global challenges — despite fundamental disagreements with China about a number of issues.

Following months of assessment by a Joint Working Group, the U.S. Defense Department announced in July that the U.S. Forces Korea Command will station a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in South Korea “as a defensive measure to ensure the security of the nation and its people, and to protect alliance military forces from North Korea's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile threats.”

Seoul should fully understand the consequences of THAAD in the ROK, reverse the deployment decision and cooperate with countries concerned in an effort to force the DPRK to abandon its nuclear project and mitigate the tense situation in the Korean Peninsula. THAAD will only produce two winners: the U.S. and the DPRK.

The notorious arbitration case will become a negative example in the history of international judicial and legal practice. In the meantime, the US has lost support among ordinary Chinese people for what had been a popular China policy.

The award in the Philippines v China case opens a chapter of a much broader and long-term relations between the states. While addressing some legal issues, it can not resolve all other conflicts, differences and competing interests. Rather, the conflicts are best handled between the two states through friendly consultations and negotiations under the prevailing Asian culture and core values of a non-confrontational approach, compromising sentiments, and a mutually understanding mind-set.

An EEZ claimed from the Spratly Islands as a unit could re-invigorate tensions between the two super-powers on the legality of military activities in the EEZ. China should carefully consider the long-term ramifications of a straight baseline declaration, not only in terms of its legality but also in terms of the impact it could have on an already volatile situation.

Neither Beijing nor Moscow have the intention to form a military alliance, which would conflict with a key component of the concept of “a harmonious world” central to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. China and Russia face different circumstances, and choosing a strategic partnership of coordination instead of alliance leaves necessary room for both to deal with their individual national interests.