It takes up the South China Sea arbitration case between China and Philippines concerning maritime entitlements in the South China Sea. The relevant arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, first on the jurisdiction and admissibility issues in October 2015, and then on the merits in July 2016. China has not only refused to accept the tribunal’s jurisdiction but also vigorously attacked the validity and legality of the final award. China’s handling of this case has several implications for its approach to international dispute settlement. The South China Sea Arbitration may have given China two takeaways: the appreciation of the importance of using international law and the understanding that foreign countries – led by the United States – again are using international law as a disguise to violate China’s sovereignty. A combination of these two factors will strengthen the prevailing attitude of treating international law as a tool to protect China’s national interest, rather than a serious belief in international rule of

This chapter analyses the environmental case practice of ad hoc inter-state tribunals and arbitral panels established under the aegis of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Judicial techniques to reflect on the scientific profile of cases are analysed in light of the Bering Sea Fur Seals, Trail Smelter, Lake Lanoux, MOX Plant, MOX Plant OSPAR, Iron Rhine, Southern Bluefin Tuna, Kishenganga, and South China Sea Arbitrations. The chapter examines how adjudicators frame the legally relevant aspects of science-intensive disputes, and the varied avenues tribunals utilize for gathering expert advice. It discusses the significance of appointing independent experts. The chapter also examines the science-based causal inquiries and causal tests from the practice of arbitral tribunals.