The South China Sea arbitration: An old pretext for new provocations

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

The South China Sea (SCS) once again became a focal point at this year's Shangri-La Dialogue. During his speech on May 31, Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro repeated long-standing accusations against China based on the so-called SCS arbitration ruling. He also attempted to justify the growing military involvement of extra-regional powers, arguing that the presence of the US, Japan and their partners, as well as increasingly large-scale joint military exercises, are intended to safeguard a "free and open Indo-Pacific" and protect "freedom of navigation," rather than undermine regional peace.

Such arguments are hardly new. For years, the arbitration ruling has been repeatedly invoked as a political tool to pressure China and legitimize certain unilateral claims in the SCS. At the same time, some extra-regional powers have used the ruling as a convenient pretext to expand their military footprint in the region and interfere in issues that should be resolved by countries directly concerned.

Yet, despite the rhetoric, one fact remains unchanged: China neither accepts nor participates in the arbitration, nor does it recognize or implement the so-called ruling.

This position is not merely a diplomatic stance. It reflects China's commitment to defending the integrity of international law and preserving the proper framework for resolving disputes. Unfortunately, some countries continue to ignore the damage caused by the arbitration ruling. Rather than contributing to peace and stability, it has complicated efforts to properly manage SCS disputes, weakened confidence in international dispute settlement mechanisms and undermined the authority of the international legal order.

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 was not just a procedural misstep; it was 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 are 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 has the ruling fulfilled 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 continue to portray the ruling as the sole embodiment of "international law" and dream that China might bend to an unjust fiat are chasing a dangerous fantasy. Far from resolving the SCS dispute, 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 challenges facing the SCS 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.

The repeated efforts to revive the arbitration narrative at major international forums such as the Shangri-La Dialogue lay 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.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)