July 15, 2025

Every year around July 12, international discourse resurfaces regarding the so-called South China Sea arbitration and its so-called award. This year is no different.

The renewed focus on the South China Sea is motivated not only by the strategic miscalculations of some countries that aim to legitimize arbitration and reinforce their unilateral claims but also by deliberate efforts from those external forces to stoke regional tensions and sow discord between China and ASEAN countries.

The international community widely recognizes China's position of not accepting, participating in or recognizing both the arbitration process and its outcome. However, a small number of countries continue to underestimate the extent to which the arbitration has disrupted efforts by the parties involved to address the South China Sea issue effectively. Furthermore, they overlook its severe damage to the fairness and credibility of international dispute settlement mechanisms, as well as its detrimental impact on the global order underpinned by international law.

The arbitration ruling violates the fundamental principles of international law.

Proponents argue that the ruling constitutes international law and claim it is legally binding as an outcome of the arbitral tribunal established under the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism. However, the tribunal was set up unilaterally at the request of the Philippines, violating the fundamental principle of state consent in international jurisprudence. It exceeded its jurisdictional mandate and issued a decision containing substantial factual inaccuracies and legal misinterpretations, rendering it invalid and devoid of legal force. 

The so-called arbitral tribunal improperly addressed matters of territorial sovereignty—explicitly excluded from UNCLOS jurisdiction—while disregarding China's formally stated positions. It uncritically endorsed the Philippines' curated submissions, effectively imposing a de facto ruling on territorial rights. This contravenes the fundamental principles of judicial restraint and procedural prudence observed by international judicial bodies.

Moreover, under the pretense of "interpretation," the tribunal effectively engaged in de facto lawmaking by arbitrarily altering or creating rules of maritime law on matters such as "historical rights," "the integrity of archipelagos," and "the regime of islands." Such distortions violate established legal doctrine and undermine the role of sovereign states as the primary subjects of international law.

The arbitration ruling also runs counter to the principles of fairness and justice.

International judicial institutions exist to uphold fairness, yet a tribunal established amid perceived geopolitical motives cannot fulfill this mandate. Shunji Yanai exemplifies concerns regarding procedural matters. As the former president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, he oversaw the tribunal's formation while also serving as the chair of Japan's Advisory Panel on the Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security. This panel actively works to strengthen the US-Japan alliance and coordinate policies related to the Diaoyu Islands.

Procedural irregularities further undermine the ruling's legitimacy. The tribunal repeatedly permitted, and at times flat-out encouraged, the Philippines to submit supplementary "evidence" far beyond established deadlines. These submissions were accepted without rigorous scrutiny or cross-examination of expert testimony, violating fundamental evidentiary standards of international law.

The arbitration ruling impedes genuine dispute resolution.

The South China Sea issue involves complex overlapping territorial and maritime claims influenced by historical, political and legal factors. It cannot be resolved through a unilaterally initiated, procedurally flawed ruling in the absence of regional consensus. Current stability does not stem from this arbitration but exists despite it. Claims that treat the ruling as binding international law, or the expectation that China would accept a ruling lacking fairness and legitimacy, only hinder meaningful resolution.

China neither accepts nor recognizes the arbitrary nature of the ruling and will never accept any claim or action arising from it. The country is committed to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests accorded by international law, including UNCLOS, while preserving the integrity, seriousness and authority of international law itself. 

Achieving a durable resolution to the South China Sea issue requires restraint, patience and goodwill from all parties involved. Any solution must be rooted in respect for historical facts and guided by the principles of understanding and cooperation enshrined in international law. Only through such collective efforts can the relevant parties jointly maintain the hard-won peace and stability in the South China Sea and forge a future of mutual benefit and win-win cooperation.

Ding Duo is the director of the Research Center for International and Regional Issues at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies.

Link: https://peoplesdaily.pdnews.cn/opinions/er/30049669195