Who determines international law? Typically, mutual diplomatic agreement between the nations involved.

Exactly, and this is what has happened with multiple claimants that have resolved past disputes, including the PRC in some cases. However, as part of this mutual agreement, international law is also administered through international treaties and bodies such as the UNCLOS, to which the PRC is a signatory, therefore agreeing to its judgements. It provides the legal framework for maritime borders with EEZs, with the PRC claim greatly exceeding their EEZ, and ruled against the PRC, which it did not recognize despite their signatory status. To unilaterally, militarily enforce their claim anyway is therefore violating international law.

The amount of disputed maritime borders in the world is a very long one. It’s not like China is the only country doing this kind of thing. But you live in the imperial core, so you hear this as if China is the only country that’s evil enough to do such a thing and nod solomly.

You’re doing it again, this is not only moving the goalposts but also whataboutism. We were talking specifically about the SCS dispute, where of course the PRC is mentioned because Western imperialists are far less relevant, regardless of their own disputes that they of course also have elsewhere. Vietnam also violates international law here, which I will acknowledge, but that has not been the point argued and it certainly is less capable of imperialism than superpowers like the US or China. The point is not that only the PRC does it, but that it also does - and that it needs to stop just like anyone else. Imperialism is not something only the West can do, it is determined by actions - the PRC can also be imperialist, and it could be argued that this military action ignorant of international law is such an example.

I won’t participate in this discussion any further if you continue the personal name-calling. You don’t know me, don’t accuse me of being manipulated by imperialism.