A farce that has been a disaster for ten years - the "S

Beijing, July 11 (Xinhua) -- A ten-year tragedy: The "South China Sea Arbitration Case" is once again at its bottom

 

Xinhua News Agency reporter Liu Zan

 

The Indonesian Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies recently held a seminar on the South China Sea issue in Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia. Experts and scholars from multiple countries in attendance questioned and criticized the 2016 South China Sea arbitration case, sternly refuting the award from an international legal perspective, calling it "arbitrary," "double standard," and "unprofessional.

 

Ten years ago, a makeshift "arbitration tribunal" made a so-called "ruling" on the "South China Sea arbitration case" initiated by the Philippines with unilateral support from external forces - reversing black and white, confusing right and wrong, and endorsing the Philippines' illegal claims in the South China Sea. This is a piece of paper full of lies, but it has been frequently used by certain South China Sea claimant countries and external forces in the past decade as a "legal basis" to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea. They repeatedly provoke and cause trouble, stirring up waves in the South China Sea.

 

Experts from multiple countries pointed out that this so-called "ruling" is not helpful in resolving the South China Sea issue, but rather exacerbates conflicts and expands disputes. The turmoil in the South China Sea is not beneficial to the region and the world. Regional countries should adhere to controlling differences and resolving disputes through negotiations, jointly maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea, and promoting regional development and prosperity.

 

Illegal and invalid 'rulings'

 

The so-called 'South China Sea arbitration case' is essentially a political farce initiated unilaterally by the Philippines, disguised as a law, and its' ruling 'is completely illegal and invalid.

 

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), territorial disputes do not fall within its scope of adjustment, and China has already made an exclusionary declaration in 2006 based on Article 298 of the Convention, excluding disputes related to maritime delimitation and other aspects from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of the Convention. Although the Philippines has packaged its claim of "arbitration", the essence of the "arbitration" matter is still the territorial issue of islands and reefs between China and the Philippines, which constitutes an inseparable part of the maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. In addition, China and the Philippines have long reached consensus on resolving territorial and maritime boundary issues in the South China Sea through negotiations.

 

The "arbitral tribunal" clearly has no jurisdiction over the claims of the Philippines, but ignores the above facts, which constitutes overstepping its jurisdiction. The Philippines' insistence on initiating "arbitration" violates the consensus between China and the Philippines, violates the relevant provisions of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, and goes against the basic principles of international law such as the "prohibition of counterclaims". It is an abuse of the dispute settlement mechanism of the Convention.

 

The "arbitral tribunal" has significant deficiencies in factual determination and application of law, with obvious errors and numerous loopholes in its "award". One obvious mistake is that there is no reef in the the Nansha Islands that can generate an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, and even Taiping Island, the largest island in Nansha with an area of 500000 square meters, was judged as a rock reef rather than an island. If this' standard 'is followed, many countries' claims are illegal.

 

Anthony Cuddy, a senior international law expert in the UK, pointed out that the interpretation of the Convention by the "arbitral tribunal" is biased and unprofessional, completely denying China's claims to sovereignty and maritime rights over islands and reefs in the South China Sea, while ignoring similar claims and practices of some Western countries in the Pacific region, fully exposing their double standards.

 

The arbitral tribunal itself does not possess any authority or impartiality. It was just a makeshift team that utilized the services of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, and the United Nations and the International Court of Justice quickly distanced themselves from it after making the so-called "ruling". One of the five "arbitrators" of the "arbitral tribunal" was appointed by the Philippines, and four were appointed by Japanese judge Shunji Yanai, who was then the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Yanai is a "right-wing hawk" who has always advocated "pro American containment of China". The "arbitration tribunal" service provides "clear pricing", and in the event that the Chinese side refuses to participate, the Philippine side voluntarily "pays" the fees on behalf of the Chinese side.

 

Behind the South China Sea arbitration case lies the manipulation of external forces. The US government publicly supports the Philippines' initiation of "arbitration", and the Philippine legal team is led by American lawyers. Some of these American lawyers have deep connections with the US government and have multiple working experiences with most of the "arbitrators" of the "arbitration tribunal" and Shunji Yanai. And Yanagihara was a Japanese diplomat with intricate connections to then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

 

Therefore, the demand for "arbitration" is packaged and unilaterally raised for political purposes, the composition of the "arbitration tribunal" is temporarily pieced together for political purposes, and the results of the "arbitration" are carefully crafted to achieve political ambitions. This practice violates the spirit of the rule of law, tramples on international law and norms of international relations, and sets a dangerous and bad precedent internationally.

 

Magnifying the root of disputes

 

The Chinese side has never accepted or recognized this illegal and invalid so-called 'ruling' from the beginning. However, some claimant countries in the South China Sea regard this piece of paper as an endorsement to support their illegal claims and deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea, thus adopting more aggressive measures in the South China Sea dispute.

 

In recent years, the Philippines has launched a new wave of provocations in the South China Sea, frequently sending ships to break into multiple islands and reefs in the South China Sea, creating maritime friction. At Renai Reef, the Philippine side has repeatedly attempted to transport construction materials to the illegally beached old warship "Mount Madre" in an attempt to reinforce the ship and achieve permanent occupation. In a logistics operation in June 2024, the Philippines even dispatched military personnel armed with guns. On Huangyan Island, Philippine ships have repeatedly illegally intruded into adjacent waters. In a clash incident in August 2025, the Commander in Chief of the Philippine Armed Forces even claimed that the Philippine Armed Forces and Coast Guard members had been instructed to follow "rules of engagement" when carrying out their missions.

 

The Philippines is not only provoking at sea, but also engaging in so-called 'legal warfare'. At home, the Philippines introduced the so-called "Maritime Area Law" in November 2024, illegally incorporating most of the islands and reefs and related sea areas of China's Huangyan Island and the Nansha Islands into the Philippine maritime area, in an attempt to solidify the illegal "award" of the "South China Sea Arbitration Case" through domestic legislation. Internationally, the Philippines submitted a delimitation case for the outer continental shelf of the South China Sea to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in June 2024, attempting to open up a "new battlefield" and consolidate or even expand its illegal gains and unilateral claims in the South China Sea.

 

The United States and its allies have also increased their efforts to disrupt the South China Sea: frequently carrying out so-called "freedom of navigation operations" in the South China Sea, challenging China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights claims; Holding joint military exercises to exert military pressure on China; Strengthen cooperation with relevant South China Sea claimant countries, especially military security cooperation, provide them with advanced weapons and equipment, enhance their ability to confront China at sea, and provide diplomatic support to them in case of disputes in the South China Sea; Support the Philippines in conducting public opinion debates against China, using the advantages of Western media and public opinion hegemony to label China as "bullying the small with the big" and "not abiding by international law"; Continuously hyping up the South China Sea issue and the "South China Sea arbitration case" in international bilateral and multilateral occasions, attempting to promote international recognition of the "legal binding force" of the so-called "ruling" and forcing China to comply.

 

In addition, the South China Sea arbitration award has raised the expectations and demands of some South China Sea claimant countries, which has a negative impact on the ongoing negotiations between China and ASEAN on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.

 

Wu Shicun, Chairman of the Huayang Ocean Research Center and Academic Committee of the China Academy of South China Sea Studies, pointed out that the "South China Sea Arbitration Award" has become a source of turmoil affecting peace and stability in the South China Sea. It is a "protective umbrella" for the Philippines to challenge China's legitimate and legitimate rights and interests in the South China Sea, a "shield" for other South China Sea claimant countries' unilateral infringement actions, a "precious sword" for the United States and Western countries to intervene in South China Sea affairs and strengthen military presence, and a "roadblock" to maritime cooperation and the construction of rules and order.

 

The right path that should be returned to

 

The South China Sea is an important maritime corridor between the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean. The Asia Pacific region, where the South China Sea is located, is the most dynamic area of the global economy. Peace and stability in the South China Sea are important prerequisites for regional development and prosperity, as well as beneficial to global economic development.

 

The dispute resolution procedures, including arbitration, were originally aimed at "settling disputes and putting an end to disputes". However, the history of the past decade has shown that the "South China Sea Arbitration Award" not only does not help solve the South China Sea issue, but also makes disputes more difficult to resolve, causing frequent high winds and waves in the South China Sea and bringing greater instability to the regional situation.

 

The turmoil in the South China Sea is not in line with the interests of all countries in the region. Devi Sasongko, CEO of the Indonesian Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, pointed out that Southeast Asian countries are highly dependent on international trade, foreign investment, and maritime connectivity. If the South China Sea is not peaceful, it will have a negative impact on the trade and investment of regional countries, leading to overall supply chain problems.

 

Huang Meiyuan, Executive Director and Chief Strategy Officer of Malaysia Forward Think Tank, believes that once a conflict occurs in the South China Sea, it will not only cause huge economic losses to regional countries, but also impact the cooperation model that ASEAN relies on for survival, putting pressure on ASEAN's "low-key, consensus based diplomacy".

 

The Philippines, which brought up the issue of "arbitration," also bore the consequences. Herman Laurel, director of the Philippine Institute for Strategic Studies in the Asian Century, pointed out that the "ruling" has never been widely recognized by the international community, but has instead caused sustained tension in Philippine Chinese relations, resulting in the Philippines losing China's trust, assistance, and investment, and suffering heavy losses.

 

China is an important coastal country in the South China Sea and has always been committed to maintaining peace, stability, and order in the South China Sea. It has always insisted on resolving disputes related to the South China Sea through negotiation and consultation. In 2002, China reached the "Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea" through negotiations with ASEAN countries. Currently, China is actively promoting consultations on the "Code of Conduct in the South China Sea" with ASEAN countries, providing institutional guarantees for building the South China Sea into a sea of peace, friendship, and cooperation. British expert Katie pointed out that China has long shown restraint in the South China Sea dispute, not resorting to force, and adhering to the principle of non use of force to resolve international disputes in the United Nations Charter.

 

Most countries in the region are also unwilling to cause chaos in the South China Sea and hope for a peaceful resolution to the issue. The intervention of foreign forces, especially the United States, in the South China Sea issue is aimed at stirring up conflicts between China and neighboring countries and achieving the sinister goal of containing China. Most countries in the region are very clear about this.

 

Several regional experts have stated that the history of the past decade has proven that confrontational measures cannot solve the South China Sea issue. Regional countries should play a leading role, jointly manage differences through negotiation and consultation, accumulate mutual trust through cooperation, and jointly maintain regional peace and stability.

 

Joseph Matthews, a senior professor at Cambodia's Bertay International University, pointed out that ASEAN countries should not rely on external forces to build a security framework, but should strengthen the multilateral framework led by ASEAN and prioritize resolving disputes through diplomatic means.

 

Romer Banlaoi, President of the Philippine Institute of International Security Studies, believes that relying on external forces to support confrontation with China is not worth the loss for the Philippines. The Philippines and China should control maritime disputes through bilateral consultation mechanisms, carry out maritime cooperation in low sensitive areas, transform disputed waters into cooperation spaces, and jointly maintain regional stability and achieve mutual benefit and win-win results.

 

For a long time, Asian countries have gradually formed an Asian way of promoting regional cooperation practice that respects each other, reaches consensus through consultation, and takes into account the comfort of all parties. They have their own wisdom in handling disputes, and the same is true for the South China Sea issue. As Dutch jurist Tom Zwart has said, Asian countries have long dealt with the South China Sea issue through constructive and peaceful means, and resolving disputes through negotiation and consultation is the best way. (Participating journalists: Zhao Chenjie, Li Meng, Zhang Yisheng, Li Jiacong, Cao Kai, Wu Changwei, Wang Jiawei, Yuan Rui, Miao Xiaojuan, Zhao Jiasong)