China Rejects South China Sea Ruling at Hong Kong Security Dialogue

On July 13, 2026, a South China Sea security roundtable dialogue was held in Hong Kong alongside the release of a new publication titled “New Rebuttal of the South China Sea Arbitration Ruling” (《南海仲裁案裁决新批驳》), marking the 10th anniversary of the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling that China has consistently rejected. The event, jointly organized by the Huayang Ocean Research Center, the China South China Sea Research Institute, and the Asian Academy of International Law, brought together over 100 guests from more than a dozen countries, according to Xinhua News Agency.

Background: A Decade of Dispute

The 2016 arbitration ruling, initiated by the Philippines under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), rejected China’s “nine-dash line” claims based on historic rights and found that certain Chinese features in the South China Sea were “rocks” rather than “islands” capable of generating exclusive economic zones. China has maintained from the outset that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, citing its 2006 declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS excluding maritime delimitation disputes from compulsory arbitration, and has refused to accept or recognize the ruling.

Key Developments at the Hong Kong Dialogue

Qi Dahai (齐大海), Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, delivered a keynote address in which he characterized the 2016 ruling as “essentially a political manipulation cloaked in legal garb.” He argued that the “arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and incorrectly applied international law,” and that “China’s non-acceptance, non-participation in the ‘arbitration,’ and non-recognition of the ‘ruling’ are legitimate measures to uphold the integrity and authority of international rule of law and UNCLOS,” as reported by China News Service.

The newly released “New Rebuttal” report, jointly compiled by the China South China Sea Research Institute and Huayang Ocean Research Center with legal support from Fietta LLP (UK), analyzes the impact of the 2016 ruling over the past decade. Stephen Fietta, founder of the firm, stated at the event that “ten years of state practice, international judicial practice, and academic research show that the ‘South China Sea Arbitration ruling’ has had very limited impact on the development of the international law of the sea,” and that the ruling “has not formed international law rules with universal influence and has never gained broad acceptance from the international community.”

Wu Shicun (吴士存), Chairman of Huayang Ocean Research Center, offered a stark assessment, describing the ruling as a “troublemaker” and “source of chaos” for peace and stability in the South China Sea. He said it has become “the biggest obstacle and ‘stumbling block’ to the comprehensive and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and the orderly advancement of consultations on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC).”

International Counter-Narrative

The Hong Kong event came directly after a coordinated international response. On July 12, 2026, 14 nations — Australia, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Romania, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Philippines — issued a joint statement reaffirming the ruling as “final, legally binding, and definitive between China and the Philippines,” as Philstar.com reported. The statement declared that “there is no legal basis for China’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea, including those based on ‘historic rights,’” and reiterated “strong opposition to any destabilizing or unilateral actions including by force or coercion that threaten peace and stability in the region.”

China’s Foreign Ministry responded on the same day with a firm statement rejecting the joint statement, reiterating that the ruling is “illegal, null and void,” and that “China does not accept or recognize the ‘award,’ and opposes and does not accept any claim or action based on the ‘award,’” as covered by Global Times.

Diplomatic Tensions with Japan

On July 13, China escalated its response by lodging a formal diplomatic protest with Japan. China’s embassy in Japan summoned Kanai Masaaki, Director-General of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau at the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to protest Japan’s foreign minister’s statement on the ruling and Japan’s participation in the joint statement. The Chinese Embassy stated that “Japan in the South China Sea issue bears historical guilt that has not been liquidated and has no right to make irresponsible remarks,” according to a separate China News Service report.

Analysis and Implications

The events of July 12-13 represent a concentrated battle over the narrative surrounding the South China Sea dispute. China’s Hong Kong dialogue served dual purposes: domestically reinforcing the party line on sovereignty, and internationally presenting a legal and academic rebuttal aimed at influencing neutral countries and legal scholars. The “New Rebuttal” report seeks to undermine the ruling’s credibility by arguing that international judicial bodies have largely avoided citing it and that academia has broadly criticized its legal reasoning.

As CGTN noted, China’s position has garnered support from over 100 countries, though the 14-nation coalition represents some of the world’s most powerful economies. The competing narratives highlight the fundamental impasse: China insists on bilateral negotiations as the only legitimate path to resolution, while the coalition countries maintain that the 2016 ruling provides a binding legal framework.

What to Watch For

The coming months will reveal whether these events accelerate or hinder the ongoing Code of Conduct negotiations between China and ASEAN countries. The heightened rhetoric on both sides could complicate the COC process, which has already faced challenges regarding scope and legal bindingness. Additionally, the Philippines under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has taken an increasingly assertive stance, with Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. stating that “we have to resist China” and calling for solidarity in defending the arbitral ruling. The trajectory of China-Philippines bilateral relations, as well as the operational response from the US and its allies in terms of freedom of navigation operations, will be critical indicators of how this decade-old dispute evolves in the years ahead.