MANILA, Philippines — China’s continued refusal to recognize the 2016 arbitral ruling on the South China Sea highlights a pattern of “selective application” of international law, according to analysts and legal experts. While Beijing is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it has been accused of prioritizing narrowly defined national interests over consistent legal adherence.
- Asserting UNCLOS: China frequently invokes UNCLOS and international law to criticize the Philippines’ maritime policies. For example, Beijing claims that the Philippines’ Maritime Zones Act and Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act “illegally included” Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal) within Philippine zones, arguing that such moves violate international practice.
- Defying UNCLOS: Simultaneously, China rejects the 2016 Arbitral Award, which ruled that its “nine-dash line” claims to historic rights are incompatible with UNCLOS. Beijing maintains the tribunal lacked authority, calling the decision “invalid” despite having ratified the convention in 1996.
- Maritime Entitlements: The arbitral tribunal ruled that any historic rights China claimed within the nine-dash line were extinguished upon its ratification of UNCLOS, as those waters fall within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of other coastal states like the Philippines.
- Environmental Impact: Reports from the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative indicate that over 2,500 hectares of coral reef have been destroyed by China’s island-building activities. Beijing, however, has recently pivoted to accusing the Philippines of environmental damage caused by the grounded BRP Sierra Madre at Ayungin Shoal.
- Operational Aggression: The Philippine government has documented a series of aggressive maneuvers by the China Coast Guard, including the use of water cannons and military-grade lasers, which the National Security Council describes as clear violations of UNCLOS and international law.
Don McLain Gill, an international relations instructor at De La Salle University, suggests that Beijing’s “two-track stance” reflects a lack of sincerity. He emphasizes that for the Philippines, maintaining a consistent legal position—anchored in the 2016 award—is crucial for strengthening its standing on the global stage.
“For the Philippines, our actions in the maritime domain are on the right side of international law,” Gill noted. He argued that Beijing’s interpretation of UNCLOS through the lens of its own “historical and cultural traditions” contradicts the convention’s purpose as a universal body of rules.
As diplomatic strains heighten, the Philippines continues to emphasize the need for all parties to abide by the rules-based international order, specifically UNCLOS and the 2016 arbitral award, to ensure regional stability.