On Sunday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement regarding certain countries' hype on the 10th anniversary of the so-called South China Sea arbitration award. The statement expressed firm objection to the "award," criticizing it for violating fundamental principles of international law, failing to resolve maritime issues between China and the Philippines and instead exacerbating tensions in the region.

On July 12, 2016, the so-called South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal issued an award in an attempt to deny China's territorial sovereignty and its legitimate maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. The Chinese government immediately stated its objection to the arbitration and refused to recognize the award.

China has made its stance clear – the so-called award on the South China Sea arbitration seriously violates international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and is illegal, null and void. China would neither participate in nor accept any outcome of the process.

China in 2024 released a report to reaffirm its firm objection to the ruling, saying it severely damages the international legal order and maritime governance.

The report claims to disclose the political background of the arbitration tribunal and the historical errors of its ruling, and aims to encourage relevant parties to resolve disputes through negotiation and manage crises through rule-based approaches.

Why does China refuse to accept and participate in the arbitration proceedings? As a sovereign state, China has the right to choose how to resolve disputes – a legitimate right granted to sovereign states by international law.

Meanwhile, the arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the Philippines is fraught with issues such as abuse of dispute settlement procedures, distortion of concepts and deliberate obscuring of the essence of the dispute. It did not possess the legal basis to proceed from the outset.

Illegal, null and void

Although the arbitration case was presented in various forms, the core of the Philippines' claims concerned China's territorial sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and maritime delimitation issues.

Territorial issues fall beyond the scope of UNCLOS. In 2006, China explicitly excluded disputes concerning maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration in a declaration made in accordance with UNCLOS, which provides for optional exceptions to compulsory dispute-settlement procedures.

The Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration on the basis of UNCLOS breached its bilateral agreement with China to settle relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations, ran counter to the 2022 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea signed by China and ASEAN countries, including the Philippines, and violated international law, including UNCLOS.

Among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United States has not joined UNCLOS, while the other four, including China, have all made similar declarations of exclusion. The arbitral tribunal exceeded its mandate and abused the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism, undermining the rule of law in international maritime affairs and engaging in actions contrary to the very Convention it claimed to uphold.

The illegal award has been much questioned by the international community. Many world-renowned experts and scholars on international laws and treaties, including former president of the International Court of Justice and former judges of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, have pointed out the serious flaws in the award. China's position of not accepting or recognizing the award garnered support from more than 100 countries.

Most disputes in today's world are resolved through negotiation and consultation between the directly concerned parties. Whether through bilateral or multilateral negotiations, or international dispute-settlement mechanisms, the prerequisite is that the countries directly involved reach an agreement or consensus.

China maintains that its position and claims in this case are consistent with the fundamental principles of international law and established practice in international relations.