Key facts
- Beijing's actions in the South China Sea have weakened the practical impact of the 2016 arbitration ruling, according to the Philippines' lead lawyer.
- The legal force of the 2016 ruling, which invalidated China's expansive maritime claims, remains intact.
- The Philippines' Department of Foreign Affairs rejected Chinese Embassy claims that the award is illegal and void.
- The DFA reaffirmed the arbitral award is final and binding under international law.
- China maintains the award is a 'waste paper' and will not affect its territorial sovereignty or maritime rights in the South China Sea.
Paul Reichler, the lead lawyer for the Philippines in the 2016 South China Sea arbitration case, stated that while China's actions over the past decade have diminished the practical impact of the ruling, its legal force remains undiminished. The ruling, which invalidated China's extensive claims in the disputed waters, is considered by Manila to be final and binding under international law.
The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has rejected recent statements from the Chinese Embassy in Manila that questioned the validity of the 2016 award. The DFA emphasized that the ruling, issued by an arbitral tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), is an unassailable part of international law, to which both the Philippines and China are parties. The DFA spokesperson for Maritime Affairs, Rogelio Villanueva Jr., countered the Chinese Embassy's assertion that the award is illegal and void, stating it is not and will never be.
China, through its Foreign Ministry, reiterated its position that the award is a "waste paper" that is illegal, null and void, and non-binding. Beijing stated that it neither accepts nor recognizes the award and that any claims or actions arising from it will not affect China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea. China urged other countries to stop referencing the award or using it as a pretext for provocations.
The DFA noted that the tribunal had jurisdiction because the dispute involved the interpretation and application of maritime law, not territorial sovereignty, and that the Philippines had fulfilled its obligations before initiating arbitration. The department also highlighted that years of bilateral negotiations with Beijing had yielded no significant progress before arbitration was pursued. The DFA stressed that respecting such rulings is crucial for the integrity of international law and the rules-based order.