Hello, I’m Zhan Qingyun.

We spent considerable time untangling jurisdiction in the South China Sea arbitration, trying to assess neutrally the opposing Chinese and Philippine positions and the tribunal’s explanation—even vigorous defense—of its own jurisdiction.

You may still wonder: if jurisdiction is so important, can a court remain neutral when it alone decides the limits of its own authority?

A domestic trial court also decides its jurisdiction, but at least a higher court can review that determination. A dissatisfied party may appeal.

Many international tribunals, by contrast, render final decisions. They are both first and last instance—one-shot courts.

No higher body reviews them, and arbitral awards are commonly final. If jurisdiction cannot be challenged, each tribunal effectively draws the boundary of its own power.

Can anyone with unlimited authority to define their own authority constrain themselves objectively and carefully under law?

Even if we assume no improper motive and trust that judges honor their oaths and legal ideals,

how can such a decision convince the affected parties and states?

The arrangement can endanger the credibility and legitimacy of the proceeding itself.

The South China Sea arbitration is an example. It influenced perceptions not merely of that tribunal, but of the rule of law and international law generally.

Many contemporary scholars still deny that international law is truly law. It lacks robust enforcement institutions and is often seen as an instrument through which great powers govern the world.

Its jurisdictional disorder is another problem. Courts created under separate treaties and other international bodies define their own spheres, producing overlap and confusion without an authoritative institution or rule to resolve them.

One result appears to be endless expansion: multiple institutions claim authority over the same matters.

But the same disorder produces the opposite problem. Each court’s jurisdiction is a set; the sets overlap, but leave gaps outside them. Some matters no one wants to address, while others everyone wants to address but no one lawfully can.