South China Sea: Rival Visions Clash on 10th Anniversary of Arbitration Ruling

As the tenth anniversary of the landmark 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling approaches, two competing visions of maritime order are colliding with renewed intensity. Chinese state media has published in-depth analyses reaffirming Beijing’s sovereignty claims over the South China Sea islands, while the Philippines—currently holding the ASEAN rotating chairmanship—led a coalition of 14 countries in issuing a joint statement reaffirming the legal binding nature of the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s award.

The Anniversary Divide

On July 12, 2026, the world marks a decade since the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled on the dispute between the Philippines and China. The tribunal invalidated China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claims encompassing approximately 90% of the South China Sea, finding “no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources” within those waters. China has consistently rejected the ruling, calling it “illegal, null and void,” and maintains that it “neither accepts nor recognizes” the award.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning reiterated this position on July 10, stating that “the so-called award on the South China Sea arbitration is illegal, invalid, and has no binding force,” as reported by the Global Times. Mao added that China would not accept “any claims or actions predicated on the so-called award.”

On the other side, Philippine Foreign Secretary Maria Theresa Lazaro commemorated the anniversary with a conference in Manila, calling the ruling “a lighthouse” for the rules-based international order. “When the waters grow turbulent, when unilateral claims cloud the horizon and when the shadow of coercion looms, nations need something far more permanent than political convenience,” Lazaro said, as reported by the Associated Press.

A Coalition of 14

On July 11-12, the Philippines and 13 other countries—Australia, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Romania, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—issued a joint statement reaffirming that “there is no legal basis for China’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea, including those based on ‘historic rights,’” according to GMA News. The statement emphasized that the award is “final, legally binding, and definitive between China and the Philippines.”

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong criticized China’s conduct, saying Australia would “continue to register our concerns about China’s vessels engaging in destabilizing and dangerous conduct in the South China Sea.”

China’s Counter-Narrative

Chinese state media has responded with a comprehensive counter-narrative. Xinhua News Agency published a lengthy analysis titled “A Farce, A Decade of Calamity—Re-examining the South China Sea Arbitration Case,” arguing that the ruling has become a source of turbulence rather than resolution. The piece, written by correspondent Liu Zan, quotes multiple regional experts who criticize the ruling and call for bilateral negotiations.

Wu Shicun, Chairman of the Huayang Ocean Research Center, described the ruling as “a source of turbulence affecting peace and stability in the South China Sea; a ‘protective umbrella’ for the Philippines’ provocations; a ‘shield’ for other claimant states’ unilateral infringements; a ‘sword’ for the US and Western countries to intervene; and a ‘roadblock’ delaying maritime cooperation and rule-building.”

The Paper and CCTV News jointly published an article on July 12 asserting that “China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and adjacent waters,” citing historical records dating back to the Western Han Dynasty and legal instruments including the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation.

Escalating Tensions Since 2016

Far from resolving the dispute, the 2016 ruling has coincided with a marked escalation in tensions. According to the research compiled from multiple sources, the Philippines conducted 34 major maritime incursions in 2024 alone. In 2025, Philippine vessels made repeated incursions near Huangyan Dao (Scarborough Shoal), Zhubi Reef (Subi Reef), and Tiexian Reef. A particularly dangerous moment came in June 2024, when armed Philippine military personnel were involved in a resupply mission to the grounded BRP Sierra Madre at Ren’ai Jiao (Second Thomas Shoal).

China has responded with a multi-pronged strategy: releasing a detailed report titled “Historical and Legal Critique of Philippine Territorial Claims in the South China Sea,” conducting high-intensity military exercises near Huangyan Dao, establishing administrative divisions under Sansha City, enacting the Coast Guard Law, and maintaining continuous patrols by the China Coast Guard.

The Geopolitical Context

The South China Sea dispute is embedded in broader US-China strategic competition. The US Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines (1951) has become a focal point, with Washington repeatedly affirming its commitment to defend Manila. The Philippines has deepened military cooperation with the US under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), while China has expanded its island construction and militarization.

As Asia Times noted in its analysis, “The 2016 tribunal was never expected to end strategic rivalry or even forceful coercion in the South China Sea. Rather, it was established to clarify the law and how it applies to the maritime disputes.” The publication argues that the award’s true significance lies in how it has shaped state practice and provided a framework through which power is exercised and contested.

Regional Perspectives

Regional experts have offered nuanced views. Dewi Sasono, CEO of Indonesia’s Defense and Strategy Institute, warned that “if the South China Sea becomes unstable, it will deal a blow to regional countries’ trade and investment.” Herman Laurel, Director of the Philippines’ Asia Century Strategic Studies Institute, noted that the ruling “has never gained widespread recognition from the international community” and has caused the Philippines to “lose China’s trust, aid, and investment.”

Rommel Banlaoi, President of the Philippine International Security Studies Association, argued that “relying on external forces to confront China is not worth it for the Philippines,” advocating for bilateral consultation mechanisms instead.

What’s Next

The Code of Conduct (COC) negotiations between China and ASEAN remain the primary diplomatic avenue for de-escalation, but the 10th anniversary has complicated the process. The Philippines, as ASEAN chair in 2026, seeks to incorporate the arbitration ruling into the COC framework—a position China firmly rejects. With the South China Sea carrying an estimated $5.3 trillion in annual ship-borne trade, the stakes could not be higher. The coming months will test whether diplomatic channels can contain a dispute that has become one of Asia’s most dangerous flashpoints.