July 13, 2025

On July 12, the Philippines issued a statement hyping up the South China Sea (SCS) arbitration ruling, a predictable maneuver in the annual theater of international discourse. This date, like clockwork, triggers a familiar chorus of commentary, amplifying a so-called ruling that is as legally dubious as it is politically charged.

This spectacle is no coincidence. It's a deliberate crescendo orchestrated by certain players with vested interests. Behind the rhetoric, some SCS dispute parties labor under a strategic delusion, hoping to cement this flawed arbitration decision as a foundation for their unilateral claims.

At the same time, a few extra-regional powers – driven by less-than-noble motives – stir the pot, aiming to muddy the waters and drive a wedge between China and its ASEAN neighbors. Yet, despite the noise, China's position remains steadfast and widely understood – it neither accepts nor participates in the arbitration, nor does it recognize or abide by its outcome.

This stance isn't a mere diplomatic footnote – it's a clarion call rooted in principle. Tragically, a handful of nations still refuse to acknowledge the havoc this ruling wreaks: it meddles with the proper resolution of SCS disputes, erodes the credibility of international dispute settlement mechanisms, and casts a long shadow over the global order built on international law.

The arbitration ruling, far from being a beacon of legal clarity, stands in stark opposition to the spirit of international law – or the rule of law. Its champions cling to a shaky premise. Since the ruling emerged from a tribunal established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it must carry the weight of a "final and binding" verdict. But this argument collapses under its own contradictions.

The tribunal, born from the Philippines' unilateral push, trampled the bedrock principle of "state consent" by overreaching its authority. Its decision is a house of cards – lacking legitimacy; it's little more than a legal mirage, evaporating under the scrutiny of reason.

Consider the tribunal's brazen oversteps. UNCLOS explicitly sidesteps matters of territorial sovereignty, yet the tribunal plunged headlong into this forbidden territory. It brushed aside China's clearly articulated positions – voiced repeatedly on the global stage – and swallowed the Philippines' carefully curated claims whole. By effectively ruling on territorial ownership, the tribunal violated the cautious, self-restrained ethos that international judicial and arbitral bodies are meant to embody.

This isn't just a procedural misstep; it's a seismic jolt that rattles the confidence of UNCLOS signatories in the convention's dispute resolution framework. Worse still, the tribunal's legacy is tainted by its reckless "law-making" under the guise of interpretation. On issues like "historic rights," "archipelagic integrity," and the "island regime," it didn't just bend the rules; it rewrote them, usurping the role of states as the true architects of international law. This audacity not only undermines UNCLOS but also threatens the very fabric of maritime legal norms.

Then there's the question of fairness and justice – ideals that international adjudication is supposed to champion. Here, the arbitration ruling falls woefully short. The tribunal wasn't a neutral arbiter; it was a stage for geopolitical theater. At key moments in the case, the fingerprints of certain extra-regional powers were unmistakable, pulling strings to shape the outcome.

Take Shunji Yanai, the Japanese judge who, as president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, helped midwife this tribunal into existence. Simultaneously, he chaired Japan's Advisory Panel on the Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security, quietly bolstering the Japan-U.S. alliance and aligning policies on the Diaoyu Dao. Impartiality? Hardly.

The tribunal's bias didn't stop there. It bent over backwards to accommodate the Philippines, accepting late-submitted "evidence" and rubber-stamping expert reports without so much as a raised eyebrow, flouting the basic evidentiary standards that international law demands. This wasn't justice; it was a mockery of it, eroding the moral authority that judicial institutions have spent decades cultivating.

Nor does the ruling fulfill its supposed purpose: settling disputes. The SCS is a tapestry of complexity, woven from historical grievances, political tensions and legal intricacies. Territorial sovereignty and maritime boundaries overlap and intertwine, defying any one-size-fits-all solution, least of all a lopsided ruling riddled with flaws.

The region's relative calm today isn't a gift from the arbitration; it's a hard-earned product of restraint and diplomacy. Those who fetishize the ruling as "international law" and dream that China might bend to an unjust fiat are chasing a dangerous fantasy. Far from resolving the SCS issue, they're pushing it further into deadlock.

China's rejection of the ruling – its refusal to acknowledge it or entertain any claims springing from it– isn't stubbornness; it's a stand for principle. By holding firm, China defends its rightful entitlements under international law, including UNCLOS, while shielding the integrity, gravity and authority of the global legal order.

The SCS's challenges won't vanish with a single stroke of a pen or a courtroom gavel. Resolution demands time, restraint and a willingness to engage in good faith. UNCLOS itself calls for a "spirit of understanding and cooperation" – a call that all parties must heed. Only through collective patience and shared effort can the region preserve its fragile peace and stability, thereby opening the door to a future where cooperation, rather than conflict, defines the SCS.

This annual July ritual of rehashing the arbitration case lays bare the stakes: a contest not just over territory or rights, but over the soul of international law. The ruling's defenders may trumpet its legitimacy, but their voices ring hollow against the reality of its illegitimacy. It's a ruling that mocks the rule of law, scorns fairness and fails to bridge divides.

For China and its neighbors, the path forward isn't through clinging to this legal relic but through forging a shared vision – one that honors sovereignty, respects history and prizes peace. The SCS deserves no less.

Ding Duo, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is the director of the Research Center for International and Regional Issues at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Link: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2025-07-13/The-SCS-arbitration-ruling-A-legal-mirage--1EYr16kch8I/p.html