Aparna A Nair Aparna A Nair is a postgraduate student at the Department of Political Science, Madras Christian College, Chennai.

In the news
On 11 June, fourteen countries issued a joint statement on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal Award between the Philippines and China. It includes the US, Philippines, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The statement reiterated that China’s expansive maritime claims have no legal basis. It also urged that maritime disputes must be resolved peacefully in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and not with ‘historical right.’ The signatories opposed the use of the coast guard or the military and the disruption of the lawful activities of other states at sea. The statement also urged compliance with the 2016 arbitral award and resolving disputes through lawful mechanisms consistent with international law.

On 12 June, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated China’s sovereignty over disputed islands in the South China Sea and over internal waters, territorial seas, contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves of those islands. The statement highlighted China’s historic rights in the South China Sea and its commitment to upholding its territorial sovereignty. It also added that land territorial issues are not subject to UNCLOS. Rejecting the 2016 arbitral ruling, China described the award as “a worthless piece of paper that is illegal, null and void, and has no binding force.”

Issues at large
1. The competing territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea
The dispute revolves around multiple overlapping territorial and maritime claims by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. Among these, China claims the largest portion of the sea through its nine-dash line, making it the most contentious claimant. The dispute centres on claims over islands, reefs and surrounding water such as the Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands and Scarborough Shoal. Over the years, the claimants have constructed facilities, reclaimed lands and deployed coast guards and naval forces to expand their presence. The South China Sea is one of the world’s busiest shipping routes with abundant fisheries and potential oil and gas reserves. Additionally, countries such as the US emphasise freedom of navigation in the region

2. The legal dispute over maritime entitlements under the 2016 arbitral award 
In 2013, the Philippines initiated an arbitration proceeding against China under UNCLOS. It sought to clarify its maritime rights and the legal status of disputed features in the South China Sea. In 2016, the tribunal stated that China’s claims to ‘historic rights’ within the nine-dash line are incompatible with UNCLOS, and that the disputed features do not qualify as islands with full exclusive economic zones. The tribunal also found that China interfered with the Philippines' sovereign rights in fishing and petroleum exploration, engaged in large-scale artificial island construction, and caused environmental damage.

3. China’s rejection and non-adherence to the ruling vs. the Philippines' reliance on the arbitral award to assert its maritime rights 
China claims historical sovereignty over the South China Sea islands, rejects compulsory arbitration, and maintains that the dispute should be addressed exclusively by the directly concerned parties. Beijing highlights that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was on territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, which should be settled through negotiation rather than arbitration. On the other hand, Manila views the 2016 arbitral award as a legal victory and as a foundation of its South China Sea policy. The Tribunal also recognised that features such as Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal belong to the Philippines' exclusive economic zones and continental shelf. The award was used to challenge China’s actions that are not in accordance with UNCLOS and to garner international community diplomatic support. Additionally, the country maintains that the rule is legally binding and should be respected, not rejected by the concerned parties.

In perspective
First, the contestation over the 2016 arbitral award highlights the limits of international law. The South China Sea is now a theatre where the rule-based international order and national interests are contested. The UNCLOS and the 2016 arbitral award are challenged on the grounds of China’s historical sovereignty and national interest. The inability to enforce the award and Beijing’s refusal to recognise the adverse ruling draw attention to the limitations of international law. In this case, to reduce tension, sustained dialogue, confidence-building measures, and progress on the “ASEAN-China code of conduct” are required. Accidental escalations stemming from repeated military or coast guard encounters will have implications for regional security and global commerce.
Second, Internationalisation of the dispute. The joint statement of fourteen countries shows the South China Sea is not just a regional territorial and maritime dispute but one of international concern. The region's relevance in global trade, freedom of navigation, and the need to defend against an adverse ruling made it a matter of global concern. While these countries maintain this view, China continues to oppose foreign interference.
 

Print

Bookmark