New Legal Reassessment Challenges South China Sea Arbitration Award

Dragon Media News Desk

Chinese research institutions have renewed their challenge to the legal foundations, evidentiary process and regional impact of the 2016 South China Sea arbitration award as the ruling marks its 10th anniversary.

A report titled “A New Critique of the South China Sea Arbitration Award” was released on Monday during the Roundtable Dialogue on South China Sea Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Legal experts, maritime specialists and scholars from several countries and regions attended the event, where the Chinese side argued that the arbitration was driven more by political considerations than by sound legal reasoning.

The dialogue was jointly organised by the Huayang Center for Maritime Cooperation and Ocean Governance and the National Institute for South China Sea Studies.

According to the organisers, the newly released 96-page English-language report reassesses the 2016 arbitration on the basis of international law, subsequent state practice, judicial precedents and academic research on maritime law.

The report identifies what it describes as serious deficiencies in the interpretation and application of law, factual findings, admission of evidence and the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

It argues that China’s rejection of claims and actions based on the ruling represents a legitimate effort to protect its sovereignty, maritime rights and interests, regional stability and the international rule of law.

Alleged Violation of the Principle of State Consent

The report identifies the alleged disregard for state consent as one of the arbitration process’s most fundamental flaws.

China had excluded disputes involving maritime delimitation and related matters from compulsory dispute settlement procedures under Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS.

The report argues that the tribunal failed to give sufficient consideration to China’s declaration and proceeded to examine issues that were inseparable from territorial sovereignty.

According to the Chinese experts, the legal status and maritime entitlements of particular features could not properly be determined without first resolving the question of which state held sovereignty over them.

On that basis, the report concludes that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and that the arbitration lacked a valid legal foundation from the outset.

Interpretation of Maritime Features Questioned

The report also challenges the tribunal’s interpretation of Article 121 of UNCLOS, which governs the legal status of islands, rocks and other maritime features.

Under Article 121, an island capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of its own may generate an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. Rocks that cannot sustain such conditions are entitled only to more limited maritime zones.

The report argues that the 2016 ruling adopted an excessively narrow interpretation of this provision and failed to give adequate consideration to historical use, human activity, natural capacity and long-standing state practice.

Chen Xiangmiao, a research fellow at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, said the participating experts broadly agreed that the tribunal had fundamentally misinterpreted Article 121 and incorrectly assessed the legal status of several maritime features.

The report was prepared in cooperation with the British law firm Fietta LLP. Chen said it examined the ruling’s legal and technical weaknesses from what the authors described as an independent professional perspective.

Practices of Supporting States Allegedly Contradict the Award

The report further argues that several countries publicly supporting the arbitration award do not apply the tribunal’s standards to their own maritime claims.

It cites the United States, Japan, France and Australia as examples of states that support the ruling while maintaining extensive maritime claims based on small islands or isolated insular features.

According to the report, such practices indicate that their support is influenced more by geopolitical interests than by consistent legal principles.

It concludes that some countries urging China to accept the award have themselves largely disregarded its central legal findings when dealing with their own island features and historical maritime claims.

The report therefore argues that the ruling has failed to become a universally accepted standard in international maritime practice.

Limited Influence on International Jurisprudence

The study also examines subsequent decisions by the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

It notes that these institutions have not treated the 2016 South China Sea ruling as a decisive precedent in several cases involving maritime delimitation or the legal status of islands and other features.

The authors interpret the absence of substantial reliance on the ruling as evidence that it has not achieved universal jurisprudential authority.

The report also refers to criticism from international law scholars and former judges who have questioned the tribunal’s reasoning and approach to jurisdiction.

Ding Duo, director of the Research Center for International and Regional Issues at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, said the report was intended to address the arbitration award’s negative legal and political consequences from an academic perspective.

He said it sought to expose alleged defects in the interpretation of law, factual findings and admission of evidence while helping regional and non-regional countries understand what Chinese scholars regard as the ruling’s true nature and risks.

Chinese Experts Cite Damage to Regional Dialogue

Chinese scholars said developments over the past decade showed that the arbitration award had increased mistrust between China and several Southeast Asian countries rather than resolving their disputes.

Ding argued that the ruling had strained relations between China and relevant states and complicated the full implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.

He also said it had obstructed orderly negotiations on a regional Code of Conduct.

China has consistently maintained that maritime disputes should be resolved through negotiation and consultation between directly concerned countries.

Beijing argues that intervention by external powers and expanded military activities in the region make the disputes more difficult to manage.

The report calls for stronger crisis-management mechanisms, wider maritime dialogue and greater use of bilateral and multilateral platforms to build mutual trust.

China Objects to Statement by 14 Countries

China has also strongly objected to a joint statement issued by 14 countries on the 10th anniversary of the arbitration award.

In a statement released on Sunday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said the ruling violated basic principles of international law and had failed to resolve maritime differences between China and the Philippines.

It argued that the arbitration had encouraged political polarisation and external interference instead of reducing tensions in the South China Sea.

Chinese experts noted that the Philippines was the only member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to sign the statement, while the Philippines and Japan were its only Asian signatories.

The Chinese Embassy in the United Kingdom, China’s Mission to the European Union and the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Asian Affairs also issued responses rejecting comments made by the United States, the European Union, Japan, the Philippines and other parties.

The Chinese Embassy in Tokyo lodged a formal protest over remarks by the Japanese foreign minister and Japan’s participation in the joint statement.

Arbitration Described as a ‘Toxic Legacy’

Jing Quan, China’s ambassador to the Philippines, wrote in an article published by People’s Daily that removing the arbitration’s “toxic legacy” had become an urgent task.

He argued that the proceedings were unlawful from the beginning and had created a divisive issue between China and the Philippines that external forces could exploit to interfere in regional affairs.

Chen Xiangmiao said the events of the past decade demonstrated that the award had intensified tensions rather than resolving maritime differences.

He added that most ASEAN members continued to prioritise regional stability and their bilateral relations with China instead of supporting confrontational approaches.

Chinese experts expect the Philippines to continue invoking the arbitration award in support of its maritime activities.

However, they argue that wider international recognition of the ruling’s alleged legal defects will gradually weaken its influence and lead to its further marginalisation.

China Emphasises Dialogue and Cooperation

The Chinese Foreign Ministry released a video on Monday titled “What the South China Sea Waves Tell Us,” reaffirming Beijing’s willingness to work with relevant parties despite continuing differences.

The video said China had the confidence and determination to overcome external disruptions, narrow differences, protect the maritime environment and maintain peaceful coexistence with neighbouring countries.

Participants in the Hong Kong dialogue also called for direct communication, crisis management and practical maritime cooperation instead of intervention by non-regional powers or reliance on unilateral legal interpretations.

Disputes in the South China Sea involve overlapping questions of law, historical rights, territorial sovereignty and strategic competition among major powers.

The Chinese position is that the 2016 arbitration award should not be treated as the sole basis for resolving these disputes. Instead, Beijing argues that directly concerned countries should strengthen political trust, maintain dialogue and pursue practical cooperation to safeguard peace and stability in the region.