by Xinhua writers Zhang Yisheng, Liu Zan
JAKARTA, July 12 (Xinhua) -- At a recent forum on the South China Sea hosted by Jakarta-based think tank Indonesia Strategic and Defense Studies (ISDS), a panel of international scholars and experts sharply questioned the legitimacy and fallout of the so-called "2016 Arbitral Award on the South China Sea."
Among the prominent voices, Anthony Carty, a highly respected professor of international law, criticized the tribunal's handling of the case, blasting the ruling as "arbitrary" and "lacking any scientific foundation."
A decade ago, an ad hoc arbitral tribunal, unilaterally initiated by the Philippines and backed by external meddling, staged what it called an "award" on the South China Sea.
Since then, the illegal and invalid document has been frequently weaponized by certain countries as a "legal basis" to distort facts, blur legal boundaries, and challenge China's indisputable territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests. Rather than resolving the dispute, the "award" has merely added fuel to the fire.
As the South China Sea remains one of the world's busiest and most vital maritime corridors, experts have stressed that maintaining peace and stability through dialogue and consultation serves the fundamental interests of both regional nations and the wider international community.
ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID "AWARD"
At its core, the "South China Sea arbitration" was a political farce wrapped in legal garb, rendering the resulting "award" thoroughly illegal, null, and void.
First, the "award" flagrantly violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as land territorial issues are not regulated by UNCLOS. As early as 2006, maritime delimitation was clearly excluded by China from "compulsory arbitration" and other procedures.
Despite Manila's calculated schemes to rephrase its claims, the subject matter of the arbitration is, in essence, an issue of territorial sovereignty over some islands and reefs between China and the Philippines, and inevitably concerns and cannot be separated from maritime delimitation between the two countries.
By disregarding China's declaration and insisting on initiating the "arbitration," the Philippines violated its long-standing bilateral consensus with China, breached the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), and ignored the fundamental international law principle of estoppel.
Second, the tribunal's ruling contained serious factual and legal flaws. Most notably, it wrongly characterized Taiping Dao, the largest island in Nansha Qundao, with an area of 500,000 square meters, as a rock rather than an island. It then concluded that no islands in Nansha Qundao generate entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or a continental shelf, which is fully inconsistent with the article of UNCLOS. By this bizarre "standard," the maritime claims of many countries worldwide would instantly be rendered unlawful.
Carty, author of the book titled "The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea Islands," emphasized that the so-called "award" arbitrarily dismissed China's historical claims and maritime rights while turning a blind eye to comparable claims and practices by some Western countries in the Pacific, revealing a blatant double standard.
"In my opinion, the tribunal was biased and unprofessional in its interpretation and application of the law of the sea convention, which lies at the very heart of the problem," Carty said at the ISDS event held in early July.
In reality, the ad hoc tribunal only rented facilities from the Permanent Court of Arbitration and nothing more. Following the issuance of the "award," authoritative international institutions, including the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, issued statements distancing themselves from this temporary body.
The five arbitrators were paid professionals who billed by the hour, providing customized services to craft "legal documents" tailored to their client's demands, essentially operating as a makeshift, profit-driven outfit stripped of any genuine authority.
Furthermore, the "arbitration" laid bare broader geopolitical machinations orchestrated by external powers. The United States openly supported and cheered the Philippines' decision to initiate the case. Manila's legal team was spearheaded by U.S. lawyers, some of whom possessed deep-seated professional ties to U.S. government agencies and prior working relationships with members of the tribunal.
Therefore, the South China Sea arbitration case filed by the Philippines is a textbook case of political bias. The appeal was unilaterally initiated under the disguise of a political purpose. The composition of the arbitral tribunal was improvised out of a political agenda and the arbitration award was carefully crafted for a political scheme. Such behavior runs counter to the spirit of the rule of law, tramples on the international law and norms governing international relations, and sets a dangerous and bad precedent for the world.
CATALYST FOR REGIONAL TENSIONS
From the very beginning, China has maintained a consistent and clear stance: it neither accepts nor recognizes the "award," declaring it null, void, and without any binding force. Nonetheless, certain states have seized upon the "award" as legal cover to advance their unlawful claims while encroaching upon China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.
In recent years, the Philippines has stepped up its provocations within the waters and airspace adjacent to China's maritime features, triggering frequent maritime confrontations.
At Ren'ai Jiao in Nansha Qundao, Manila has repeatedly attempted to send building materials to reinforce the BRP Sierra Madre, a rusty warship it deliberately ran aground in 1999. During a resupply mission in June 2024, Philippine personnel went as far as carrying firearms, severely escalating tensions on the frontlines.
At Huangyan Dao in Zhongsha Qundao, Philippine vessels have repeatedly intruded into adjacent waters without China's authorization.
Beyond maritime face-offs, Manila has sought to institutionalize its unlawful claims through domestic law and international bodies.
Domestically, the Philippines enacted the so-called "Maritime Zones Act" in November 2024, illegally including China's Huangyan Dao and most of the islands and reefs of China's Nansha Qundao, and their relevant waters into the Philippines' maritime zones.
On the international stage, the Philippines submitted information in June 2024 to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on the extent of its undersea shelf in the South China Sea where it sought to have the exclusive right to exploit resources.
Moreover, the "arbitration" has handed external powers, chief among them the United States, a convenient pretext to interfere in regional affairs.
In recent years, Washington and its allies have aggressively ramped up their military and diplomatic footprint in the region. They have conducted highly publicized "freedom of navigation operations" to challenge China, expanded joint military drills aimed at regional deterrence, and boosted security assistance by transferring advanced hardware to certain states. Concurrently, they have orchestrated a coordinated public relations campaign, portraying Beijing as a "bully" to manipulate global public opinion.
Undoubtedly, the ghost of the "arbitration" has complicated the broader architecture of regional stability.
By inflating the expectations of certain states, it has hardened their bargaining positions and eroded the incentives for bilateral negotiations. It has also created hurdles for the ongoing consultations between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on the Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea.
RETURNING TO THE "ASIAN WAY"
The South China Sea is a lifeline linking the Pacific and Indian oceans and ranks as one of the world's most critical sea lanes. The Asia-Pacific region, which encompasses these vital waters, serves as a key engine of global economic growth. Preserving peace here is paramount not just for regional prosperity, but for global development.
International dispute settlement mechanisms are intended to clarify legal rights and foster reconciliation. However, the story of the past decade proves that the "South China Sea arbitration" has achieved the exact opposite. Rather than defusing tensions, the "award" has rocked the boat, fueled recurring confrontations, and sowed profound uncertainty into the regional security landscape.
"Southeast Asian economies remain highly dependent on international trade, foreign investment, and maritime connectivity. The South China Sea serves as one of the world's most important maritime corridors, facilitating a significant share of regional and global trade," Dwi Sasongko, CEO of the ISDS, told Xinhua in a recent interview.
"If a kinetic conflict were to occur within the South China Sea itself, the consequences for the region would be considerably more severe," Sasongko stressed.
Observers also pointed out that the Philippines itself has paid a heavy price for its decade-long pursuit of this geopolitical illusion.
Herman Tiu Laurel, president of the Asian Century Philippines Strategic Studies Institute, noted that the "award" has failed to gain broad international recognition. Instead, it has eroded trust between Beijing and Manila, and cost the Philippines invaluable opportunities for Chinese investment, infrastructure partnership, and development assistance.
For generations, Asian nations have cultivated a unique diplomatic philosophy grounded in mutual respect, consensus-building, and accommodation of each other's core concerns. That "Asian Way" provides the most realistic, time-tested blueprint for defusing tensions and securing lasting peace and tranquility in the South China Sea.
As a major littoral state, China has consistently championed the peaceful resolution of disputes through dialogue and consultation. In 2002, China and ASEAN member states signed the landmark DOC, and they are currently accelerating negotiations on a more robust COC. Legal scholars like Carty have pointed out that China's long-term approach has been characterized by notable military restraint, aligning with the UN Charter's mandate against the use of force.
The prevailing consensus among regional governments remains that peace and stability are the common denominators of regional interest. Many Southeast Asian leaders have repeatedly voiced their refusal to be used as pawns in geopolitical chess matches or to be forced to choose sides between major powers.
Joseph Matthews, a senior professor at BELTEI International University in Phnom Penh, emphasized that the Philippines and its regional partners must realize that true security in Southeast Asia cannot be bought through external deterrence or by deploying foreign-borrowed ballistic missiles at the expense of regional cohesion.
True durability, Matthews said, lies in reinforcing the ASEAN-led multilateral architecture, prioritizing diplomatic de-escalation, and ensuring that bilateral partnerships supplement, rather than subvert, the shared goal of a peaceful, unified, and autonomous Southeast Asia. ■
