Editor's note: Ding Duo is the director of the Research Center for International and Regional Issues at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Imagine a thief who breaks into your home, steals your valuables, and then drags you into court. The judge rules that the thief did not take enough and orders you to hand over more. In real life, such a verdict would be universally condemned as grotesque injustice. Yet this is exactly what the so-called 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling represents.

More than fifty years ago, the Philippines illegally occupied several islands and reefs in China's Nansha Islands. Over a decade ago, it unilaterally launched the arbitration in a blatant bid to cement its unlawful seizures and expand its excessive claims. Today, the Philippines, the United States, and certain other countries continue to recycle and weaponize this ruling. China's consistent position - that it does not accept or recognize the "award" and rejects any claims or actions based upon it - has long been clear to the international community. China's sustained legal and factual rebuttals have laid bare the ruling's fundamental illegitimacy.

Ten years on, the "award"'s practical influence on state practice remains strikingly limited. Official positions across the world reveal deep and persistent divisions. While the United States, Japan, parts of the European Union, and Australia have voiced support and called for compliance, Russia, Pakistan, Syria, Venezuela, and others have explicitly rejected the ruling. They correctly note that it was rendered without China's participation and in violation of the foundational principle of state consent in international dispute settlement. Such open political polarization demonstrates that the "award" never commanded broad international consensus.

More tellingly, even vocal supporters have not applied the tribunal's rigid interpretation of Article 121(3) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in their own maritime boundary practice. This selective adherence exposes the hypocrisy behind the rhetoric.

International courts and tribunals have also treated the ruling with conspicuous silence. In subsequent cases involving island status, historic rights, and exclusive economic zone entitlements, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and other arbitral bodies have deliberately avoided citing or relying on the 2016 "award". In Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, the ICJ determined the legal status of certain maritime features solely on the basis of insufficient evidence, making no reference whatsoever to the tribunal's controversial reading of Article 121(3). In the Nicaragua v. Colombia case concerning traditional fishing rights - where the factual and legal issues closely paralleled the arbitration's reasoning - the Court rejected Colombia's claim on evidentiary grounds and declined to address the broader question of whether traditional fishing rights can survive under the Convention regime. This pattern of avoidance speaks louder than any direct criticism: the "award" is not regarded as persuasive or authoritative precedent.

Legal scholars have been equally critical. The tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by recharacterizing the dispute to encompass territorial sovereignty questions that states had expressly excluded from compulsory procedures. Its approach undermined the carefully balanced dispute-settlement system of the Convention and introduced dangerous uncertainty into international law. On questions of treaty interpretation, the tribunal departed from the ordinary meaning of the text, the negotiating history, and the intent of the drafters - effectively engaging in judicial legislation. These flaws, repeatedly highlighted by China and now widely acknowledged in academic circles, confirm that the "award" suffers from serious defects in both procedure and substance.

Legal invalidity, however, has not prevented the ruling from functioning as a persistent irritant in the South China Sea. It has narrowed the political space for direct negotiations, complicated maritime cooperation and crisis management, and eroded confidence in the Convention's dispute-settlement mechanisms. The current Philippine government has intensified its reliance on the "award" to justify attempts to alter the status quo, entrench illegal occupations, and expand its infringements. Other claimants occasionally invoke it to legitimize unilateral actions. Extra-regional powers treat the "award" as holy writ and use it to pressure China. Far from bringing peace, the ruling has become a troublemaker for regional stability, a saboteur of bilateral relations between China and other claimants, and a stumbling block to the full and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and the ongoing consultations on a Code of Conduct.

The lesson is clear. The fantasy that complex issues involving history, sovereignty, and maritime jurisdiction can be resolved by a single arbitral "award" or by dragging parties into compulsory third-party proceedings must be abandoned. History and reality have already demonstrated that such an approach cannot produce a just or lasting outcome. Equally, the notion that external powers can be enlisted to suppress China's legitimate rights and interests only heightens tensions and ultimately harms the peace, stability, and development prospects of the entire region.

The constructive path forward lies in practical cooperation. The immediate priority should be to advance low-sensitivity maritime cooperation in areas such as joint fisheries conservation and management, marine environmental protection, search and rescue, and marine scientific research. These endeavors deliver tangible public goods, build mutual trust, and create favorable conditions for addressing more difficult issues in the future. 

Only by rejecting judicial quick fixes and external interference, and by returning to direct dialogue and pragmatic collaboration, can the South China Sea truly become a sea of peace, friendship, and cooperation.