It's a glaring editorial error to present a dispute as being concluded with your own opinion. That's what the Times has done. Whether its readership is aware of it or not.
I furthermore disagree with the assertion that the average Times reader is no doubt familiar with the context.
I find it troubling you present the context improperly yourself (China v. UNCLOS) in writing your opinion here.
Disputes are fractal. Any summary will be incomplete to some observer.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which China is a party (but the United States is not) [1], ruled with the Philippines on the South China Sea's territoriality being drawn by UNCLOS rules. Others in the region disputing China's claims take similar positions [2]. The UUV was seized closer to the Philippine shore than to mainland China.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t...
[2] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-and-Indonesia...
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/uncl...
Article 298 limitedly exempts Section 2. This makes sense because the purpose of UNCLOS is to settle maritime territoriality disputes.
See §§ 397 - 412 of the ruling [1] for the Tribunal's reasons Article 298 does not apply to many salient pieces of the Philippines' case, including those pertaining to "Scarborough Shoal" (§ 400), "Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, or Subi Reef" (§ 401) and others.
[1] http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1506 page 140
It's unfortunately going to take a few days to read this in full.
Ultimately, international law is a convenient fiction. South China Sea territoriality will be decided by the United States weighing the benefits of freedom of navigation against the cost of enforcing UNCLOS boundaries with force. Sending drones and forcing them to be returned is less risky (and less effective) than piloting manned ships through the area.