The South China Sea Verdict: Defiance Cannot Erase a Landmark Legal Victory

The Legal Determinations Of The South China Sea Arbitration

The dispute was not primarily about territorial sovereignty. The Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership over the contested maritime features—the generic term encompassing the disputed rocks, reefs, islands, and low-tide elevations scattered across the South China Sea. Instead, the case focused on violations of UNCLOS, which governs state rights pertaining to commerce, the environment, natural resources, and freedom of navigation. Nevertheless, determining whether China breached its UNCLOS obligations through its island-building campaign and reckless maneuvers at Scarborough Shoal required the Tribunal to first establish the legal classification of each feature. This classification was pivotal, as it directly impacted related sovereign rights and natural resource entitlements. For instance, a rock generates a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea but yields no exclusive economic zone, while low-tide elevations and reefs generate no maritime entitlements whatsoever.

Philippine Navy personnel aboard the frigate BRP Jose Rizal render a salute during a passing exercise alongside the Royal Australian Navy destroyer HMS Brisbane, concluding a multinational maritime cooperation exercise involving the Philippines, Australia, and Canada near Scarborough Shoal in contested South China Sea waters on September 3, 2025. (Photo by Ted ALJIBE / AFP) (Photo by TED ALJIBE/AFP via Getty Images)

AFP via Getty Images

The Tribunal delivered an overwhelming triumph for the Philippines, ruling that none of the contested features qualified as legal islands. This decisive finding effectively dismantled China’s nine-dash line and invalidated its massive artificial island-building campaign—a profound blow to Beijing’s national pride. The Tribunal further determined that China had caused severe environmental destruction and executed unsafe maneuvers that infringed upon the rights of Philippine personnel and Filipino fishermen. In response, Beijing swiftly dismissed the ruling as a worthless piece of paper and orchestrated a global media campaign to denounce the verdict.

A Decade Of Chinese Defiance Following The South China Sea Ruling

Ten years on, skeptics of the ruling’s enduring relevance have ample evidence to cite. After all, China never abandoned its artificial archipelagos and has instead expanded their military and surveillance capabilities. Just two months prior to the ruling, Rodrigo Duterte was elected President of the Philippines; he famously distanced himself from the United States and aligned closely with Beijing (and currently faces an International Criminal Court trial for crimes against humanity). Beijing’s law enforcement and military vessels continue to operate recklessly throughout the South China Sea, frequently deploying water cannons and even severing the thumb of a Philippine sailor at a contested feature in 2024. As the ASEAN chair, Manila is still attempting to negotiate the long-stalled South China Sea Code of Conduct—an effort ASEAN has pursued since 2002 with minimal progress. A primary point of contention remains China’s refusal to accept a legally binding Code.

China also continues to exercise de facto control over Scarborough Shoal, employing lawfare to reinforce its illegal claims. Following the ruling, China initially permitted Filipino fishermen to return to the shoal for several years. In 2019, President Xi Jinping offered then-Philippine President Duterte a lucrative oil and gas deal in exchange for abandoning the arbitration award. When Duterte refused, China once again barred Filipino fishermen from accessing the shoal. In 2025, Beijing escalated its assertions, establishing a “nature reserve” to create a domestic legal pretext for arresting any Filipinos who fish there, while paradoxically portraying itself as the “lawful” guardian of the environment by manipulating the ruling’s principles.

How The South China Sea Arbitration Established The Rules Of Engagement

Despite Beijing’s incomplete compliance, the ruling has established the fundamental parameters for conduct in the South China Sea. It now dictates the terms of regional diplomacy and negotiation. On the ruling’s tenth anniversary, the United States, the Philippines, and twelve other nations reaffirmed their commitment to the decision while condemning China’s unlawful behavior. At least twenty-seven states have formally called for the ruling to be respected, and seventeen more have issued broadly supportive statements. Only eight states have publicly rejected the verdict. Other claimant states invoke the ruling to legitimize their own actions—yet China denounces them sharply whenever they do. Malaysia and Indonesia have cited the decision in United Nations communications. When Vietnam and Indonesia, or Indonesia and Malaysia, resolved long-standing maritime boundary disputes according to UNCLOS, Beijing dispatched vessels to enforce its own competing claims against those states.

A decade later, China remains apprehensive of the ruling. Beijing has not created any new islands in the Spratlys since the award and has never provided a reason for its cessation. China’s state media continues its relentless denunciation of the verdict. In 2023, the Philippine Coast Guard launched an assertive transparency initiative to expose China’s illegal, coercive, aggressive, and deceptive activities in the South China Sea. Manila began releasing footage of China violating the arbitration ruling, publicly denouncing Beijing’s illegality on social media platforms. Philippine officials credit this transparency strategy with successfully garnering international support for the Philippines and reinforcing its military alliances. The strategy has also provoked an angry response from China, which has demanded that Manila rein in the Coast Guard spokesman spearheading the efforts.

The Philippines-China arbitration decision has fundamentally altered the behavior of states worldwide. The ruling shifted China’s South China Sea claims from “contested” to “unlawful” in the global perspective. The decision has become a shared legal vocabulary, forcing states to either support or denounce it. Each time a nation invokes or relies upon the ruling, its impact and significance compounds—making it increasingly difficult for China to disregard. Conversely, every time China denounces the verdict, it suffers a significant cost to its legitimacy. Whether China ultimately abides by the decision may well determine whether armed conflict in the Pacific commences. Meanwhile, the Philippines continues to demonstrate to the world how a resolute state can fight and win on the legal battlefield.

Source link