Report Condemns 2016 South China Sea Ruling as Illegal

A new report released on July 16 by four leading Chinese research institutions has condemned the 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling, arguing that it “runs counter to international judicial practice” and was fundamentally flawed from its inception. The report, titled “Legal Critique of the South China Sea Arbitration Award — The South China Sea Arbitration Award is Not International Law,” was jointly produced by the China Institute for South China Sea Studies, Jinan University, Ocean University of China, and Shanghai Maritime University, as reported by Xinhua News.

Background: A Decade of Disagreement

The 2016 arbitration case was initiated unilaterally by the Philippines in 2013 under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). On July 12, 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued its award, ruling in favor of the Philippines on key issues, including that China’s historic claims in the South China Sea had no legal basis under UNCLOS. China has consistently rejected the ruling, maintaining that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the award is “illegal, null and void.”

The July 16 report is the third in a coordinated series of publications released during the week of the 10th anniversary of the ruling. A “Re-critique” report was released in Beijing on July 11, followed by a “New Critique” report at the South China Sea Security Roundtable Dialogue in Hong Kong on July 13, which was covered by CGTN.

Key Arguments of the Report

The report centers its critique on three main areas: jurisdiction, procedural integrity, and substantive legal errors.

Jurisdiction: The report argues that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction from the outset. China and the Philippines had confirmed through bilateral treaties that disputes would be handled through bilateral consultation and negotiation, excluding third-party arbitration. China submitted a declaration in 2006 under UNCLOS Article 298, explicitly excluding maritime delimitation disputes from compulsory arbitration. The tribunal, the report contends, ignored this declaration and “forcibly included disputes outside its受理范围” (scope of acceptance), lacking jurisdictional basis from the start.

Procedural and Evidentiary Issues: The tribunal allegedly accepted unverified evidence from single sources, violating evidentiary rules and abandoning its neutral position. The report characterizes individual arbitrators as having “abandoned independent judgment from beginning to end, catering to the instructions and demands of the political forces behind them, completely losing credibility.”

Substantive Errors: The tribunal is accused of ignoring the geographic, historical, and legal integrity of the Nansha (Spratly) Islands, artificially dividing them into unrelated scattered reefs and islands, thereby violating China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

A Coordinated Challenge

The report series represents the most coordinated Chinese academic challenge to the 2016 ruling since its issuance. The Hong Kong event on July 13 included over 100 experts from China, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia, and other countries, and notably featured legal support from the British firm Fietta Law. As reported by People’s Daily, Stephen Fietta, founder of the firm, stated that “ten years of state practice, international judicial practice, and academic research show that the so-called ‘South China Sea arbitration award’ has had very limited impact on the development of international law of the sea.”

Wu Shicun, Chairman of the Academic Committee of the China Institute for South China Sea Studies, described the ruling as having become “a glue binding together the interests” of the Philippines and other nations seeking to legitimize their claims through the award.

International Counter-Perspective

The Chinese reports were released against the backdrop of a joint statement by 14 nations — including the United States, United Kingdom, Philippines, Japan, Australia, and several European countries — reaffirming the 2016 ruling as “final, legally binding and definitive.” According to The Hindu, the nations rejected “destabilising actions” in the disputed waters and called on all parties to resolve disputes peacefully under UNCLOS.

Analysis and Implications

The dueling reports and statements highlight the deepening divide over the legal status of the South China Sea. The Chinese academic reports argue that the 2016 ruling has not been widely accepted by the international community, pointing to subsequent international judicial bodies that have “generally deliberately avoided” citing it. The 14-nation statement, however, insists the ruling remains a “significant milestone” in international law.

This fundamental disagreement carries significant implications for regional stability. The reports aim to influence the positions of ASEAN member states and other regional actors, while the international reaffirmation signals continued Western support for the rules-based maritime order. The dispute also tests the credibility of UNCLOS as a dispute resolution mechanism and complicates ongoing negotiations for a South China Sea Code of Conduct.

What to Watch For

As the 10th anniversary passes, key questions remain: Will the Chinese academic challenge influence the legal positions of other claimant states such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei? How will the U.S. administration navigate its treaty obligations to the Philippines amid heightened tensions? And can the Code of Conduct negotiations progress despite the fundamental disagreement over the 2016 ruling?

What is clear is that nearly a decade after the historic arbitration award, the legal and political battle over the South China Sea shows no signs of resolution.