By Sun Jianxiang
This July 12 marks the ninth anniversary of the illegal "2016 Arbitral Award on the South China Sea." Over the past nine years, extensive studies and evidence have fully demonstrated that every stage of this case, from initiation and hearings to the final ruling, was riddled with political manipulation.
The so-called Arbitral Award on the South China Sea was conducted by an ad hoc tribunal on a unilateral submission filed by the Benigno Aquino III administration of the Philippines. In essence, this was nothing more than a political farce under the guise of law. In 2006, in accordance with Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), China submitted a declaration to the UN Secretary-General, explicitly excluding disputes concerning maritime delimitation and historic titles from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures.
However, the arbitral tribunal willfully disregarded China's legitimate declaration and forcibly proceeded with the case, which in itself constituted an abuse of authority and ultra vires conduct. A tribunal that disregards a party's legitimate declaration of exclusion fundamentally forfeits the legitimacy and credibility of its ruling. Meanwhile, the "award" is extremely biased, turning a blind eye to China's historic rights in the South China Sea, its official position papers, and related evidence. This so-called "legal" drama is nothing but a political farce in disguise. The forces behind it are precisely those who undermine peace and development in the South China Sea, distort the outcomes of WWII, and embolden acts of infringement and provocation.
The Philippines has now completely torn off its "peaceful" disguise. A review of its statements over the past three years clearly shows how it has shed its "victim" costume. In its 2023 and 2024 statements, the Philippines portrayed itself as a "victim," wrapping its rhetoric in slogans of peace and prosperity. In 2025, however, its statement bluntly focuses on safeguarding its own interests. Looking ahead, the Philippines is likely to undermine regional peace and stability in even more aggressive ways, resorting to more frequent provocations to attract the attention of the international community, especially that of the US.
The Philippines invokes "the rule of law" at every turn, yet every claim distorts it. To appear as if it "respects international law," the Philippines tries to cite the "ruling" of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) as its backing. In reality, however, the advisory opinion issued by ITLOS focuses on climate change response and marine environment protection, and doesn't cover issues of territorial and maritime disputes, less the validity of arbitral award on the South China Sea. Back then, the Philippines unilaterally initiated the "arbitration" without fulfilling the necessary prerequisite of fully exchanging views in advance, violating the principle of "pacta sunt servanda", the doctrine of estoppel, and other basic principles of international law. The so-called "tribunal" acted ultra vires and infringed upon China’s right as a State Party to the UNCLOS to freely choose its means of dispute settlement.
Unlike China, which can present comprehensive and solid historical evidence, the Philippines relies instead on claims of actual control and occupation, invoking the UNCLOS only when it serves its own interests. In truth, the Philippines has no genuine respect for the rule of law. It cherry-picks what to uphold and discards what is inconvenient, opportunistically exploiting international legal norms for its own gain.
Stability in the South China Sea benefits all countries in the region while turmoil harms everyone. China has always been committed to peacefully resolving disputes with other parties concerned through negotiation, working together with ASEAN countries to fully and effectively implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), and pushing for an early conclusion of a Code of Conduct to provide strong institutional safeguards for peace and stability in the region.
(The author is from the Institute of Maritime Strategy Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.)
Editor's Note: Originally published on china.com.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.
