Editor's note: Xu Ying is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator for CGTN. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Ten years after the so-called "South China Sea Arbitration Award" was issued, the controversy surrounding it has once again been revived – not because the ruling has gained new legal validity, but because certain countries have chosen to breathe political life into a document that has long been devoid of legal force.

On July 12, 2026, 14 countries led by the United States issued a joint statement praising the tribunal's decision. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded immediately with a comprehensive statement that not only reaffirmed Beijing's longstanding position but also clarified the legal, historical and geopolitical realities surrounding the dispute. More importantly, it demonstrated China's continued commitment to resolving differences through dialogue while defending the integrity of international law.

The statement carries significance on three interconnected levels. First, it once again draws a firm legal boundary by reiterating that the arbitral award is illegal, null and void. Second, it exposes the geopolitical motivations behind efforts by external powers to revive the ruling and internationalize the South China Sea dispute. Third, it reinforces China's consistent commitment to peaceful dispute settlement through bilateral consultation and the ongoing negotiations on a Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea. Together, these messages provide both a legal rebuttal and a strategic roadmap for maintaining regional peace and stability.

The first and most fundamental point is that the so-called arbitration award lacks legal legitimacy from its very foundation. International arbitration is built upon one indispensable principle: The consent of sovereign states. China never accepted the compulsory arbitration initiated unilaterally by the Philippines, nor did it participate in the proceedings.

Moreover, in 2006, China exercised its lawful right under Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to exclude disputes concerning maritime delimitation and historic titles from compulsory arbitration. The tribunal nevertheless proceeded to hear matters that directly concerned territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation – issues clearly beyond its jurisdiction.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry's statement therefore correctly emphasizes that the award violated both the provisions and the spirit of UNCLOS. Rather than strengthening international law, it undermined one of its most fundamental principles: Respect for state sovereignty and consent. A tribunal cannot create jurisdiction where none exists. Nor can it rewrite history by dismissing longstanding historical rights that predate the Convention itself.

China's sovereignty over the Dongsha Qundao (the Dongsha Islands), Xisha Qundao (the Xisha Islands), Zhongsha Qundao (the Zhongsha Islands) and Nansha Islands (the Nansha Islands), together with the associated maritime rights developed through centuries of continuous administration and utilization, rests upon abundant historical and legal evidence. Chinese fishermen, navigators and officials had discovered, named, administered and peacefully used these islands long before the emergence of modern international maritime law. These historical facts cannot be erased by a single arbitration award rendered without the participation of one of the principal parties.

Equally important, the Foreign Ministry's statement exposes why some countries continue to resurrect this legally flawed ruling. The anniversary has become less about international law than about geopolitical hostility. By repeatedly invoking the arbitration award, certain external powers seek to justify a sustained military and political presence in the South China Sea, deepen bloc confrontation and encourage regional countries to choose sides.

This strategy has become increasingly transparent over the past decade. Rather than easing tensions, constant references to the award have encouraged confrontation, emboldened unilateral maritime actions and complicated efforts to manage disputes peacefully. Military deployments, freedom of navigation operations conducted with strategic intent, close-in reconnaissance missions, and expanding alliance networks have all contributed to greater uncertainty. Ironically, those who claim to defend a "rules-based order" have often become the principal drivers of geopolitical hostility in waters that should remain a shared space for regional cooperation.

The composition of the latest joint statement is revealing in itself. The overwhelming majority of members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) chose not to participate. Their restraint reflects an important regional consensus: South China Sea disputes are best managed by the countries directly concerned through consultation and dialogue rather than by outside intervention.

This distinction matters because ASEAN countries have consistently prioritized stability and economic development over geopolitical hostility. Despite occasional differences, China and ASEAN have maintained communication channels, expanded practical maritime cooperation and steadily advanced negotiations on the COC in the South China Sea. The completion of successive readings of the draft COC demonstrates that regional countries are capable of managing differences through patient diplomacy instead of external pressure.

The third major message conveyed by China's statement is therefore forward-looking. While firmly rejecting the invalid arbitration award, China simultaneously reiterates its commitment to resolving disputes peacefully through bilateral negotiation with directly concerned parties and through the broader China-ASEAN framework.

This approach reflects both international law and regional practice. Bilateral negotiations allow specific disputes to be addressed according to their unique historical and factual circumstances, while the COC negotiations provide institutional safeguards that reduce the risk of misunderstanding and conflict across the broader region. These complementary mechanisms offer a far more practical path toward lasting stability than repeated attempts to internationalize disputes through political declarations.

The South China Sea today remains one of the world's busiest and most important maritime corridors. Commercial shipping continues to move freely, and freedom of navigation has never been threatened. The real challenge lies not in commercial access but in preventing geopolitical competition from overshadowing regional cooperation. The interests of regional countries are best served by preserving peace, maintaining open sea lanes and fostering economic integration rather than importing strategic hostility.

China's latest statement therefore reaffirms fundamental principles of international law, rejects attempts to manipulate legal instruments for political ends and presents a constructive vision for managing maritime disputes through dialogue and regional cooperation. In doing so, it counters external narratives that seek to politicize the South China Sea while reinforcing the legal and diplomatic foundations for long-term stability.

History cannot be rewritten through coordinated statements, nor can legality be manufactured through political repetition. Ten years after the arbitration award, the document remains what China has consistently maintained it to be: illegal, null and void. The future of the South China Sea will not be determined by distant geopolitical calculations, but by the wisdom of the regional countries that share its waters and have the greatest stake in preserving it as a sea of peace, friendship and cooperation.

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