04 November 214 - To help sustain the momentum of the rule of law at the international level, the Philippines hosted an event on the margins of the International Law Week in the United Nations (UN) as the country’s contribution to draw greater attention to the subject of enforcement of judicial and arbitral decisions between States.

Entitled, “The Enforcement of International Judicial and Arbitral Decisions”, the event was keynoted by esteemed Professor Sean Dean Murphy of the George Washington University Law School.

In his opening remarks, Ambassador Libran N. Cabactulan, Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the UN, underscored that the international community has become more reliant on the rule of law as a cornerstone of the peaceful settlement of disputes.

“More and more States are submitting their disputes to international tribunals to manifest their commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security. International law is the great equalizer,” Ambassador Cabactulan said.

In his presentation, Professor Murphy laid down several trends on and prospects for the enforcement of international judicial and arbitral decisions. One trend he cited is the proliferation of international courts and tribunals for inter-state dispute resolution. Another is the good degree of compliance by states with the decisions of international courts and arbitral tribunals. 

Professor Murphy stressed that compliance proved to be “really strong although not perfect.”

“We do live in a world where a lot of people believe in the law. Even if you don’t like the decision, the tendency is to be law-compliant and, therefore, to follow the decisions rendered,” he said. 

Arguing further that countries will benefit from abiding by arbitral decisions for land or maritime disputes, he added,  “What the tribunal is giving you is certainty as to where the boundary is, and that has a lot of benefits, particularly if you want to explore natural resources or to sort out your relationship with another country.”

The resort to international tribunals to settle disputes peacefully is a key element of the Philippines’ “Triple Action Plan” that prescribes specific steps, including arbitration, to address maritime disputes in the West Philippine Sea/South China Sea.

Legal experts from various Permanent Missions to the UN actively participated in the discussions. Professor Murphy was asked on the consequences of default, an apparent reference to the case filed by the Philippines, and China’s refusal to participate. 

Professor Murphy replied that non-participation presents some difficulties to the courts but stressed that while such a situation is unfortunate, the court would nonetheless have to assess the merits of the case and issue a final and binding judgment. He also said that “courts and tribunals do not regard non-participation as resulting in a default.” 

“…because if all it took is not showing up for there to be no ability for the tribunal to issue a judgment, the whole system will fall apart,” he argued.

The reply of the Professor finds basis under Article 9 of Annex VII of the UNCLOS which states that “absence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings.”  END