By Liz Lagniton | 2026-06-23

The 2016 South China Sea arbitral ruling remains one of the Philippines' most important legal victories, but a decade later its meaning is still widely misunderstood.

The July 12, 2016, decision invalidated key aspects of Beijing's expansive maritime claims, affirmed Filipino fishermen's traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and strengthened Manila's legal position in the West Philippine Sea.

But the ruling did not decide sovereignty over disputed islands and reefs, nor did it end confrontations at sea. Chinese vessels continue operating in disputed waters, and Beijing still rejects the award.

Manila still cites the ruling to support its position in the South China Sea.

As Beijing expanded its maritime presence, the Philippines turned to arbitration in January 2013 after the 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff. Manila framed the case around maritime rights rather than sovereignty, allowing the tribunal to assess China's claims under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) without deciding ownership of disputed features.

This approach has since been described by some analysts as a strategic use of lawfare, a calculated effort that "strategically invoked established international legal avenues to counter China's military and maritime encroachment," according to a commentary published by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore in April.

At the center of the dispute was China's so-called "nine-dash line," a sweeping claim covering more than 80% of the South China Sea.

Court rejected Chinese claims

Philippine officials said that the claim exceeded the maritime rights recognized under international law and infringed on areas within the country's 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the West Philippine Sea, Manila's name for portions of the South China Sea within its maritime jurisdiction.

The tribunal's most consequential finding was that China's claims to historic rights within the nine-dash line had "no legal basis" insofar as they exceeded maritime entitlements provided under UNCLOS.

The tribunal found that none of the disputed features in the Spratly Islands qualified as islands capable of generating a 200-nautical-mile EEZ.

It further concluded that China had interfered with Philippine fishing and petroleum activities in areas within the Philippines' EEZ and had caused significant environmental damage.

The ruling, however, did not determine sovereignty over disputed islands and reefs. That issue fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. Instead, the decision focused on maritime rights and the interpretation of international law.

Establishing a framework

The arbitration case was never expected to settle the South China Sea dispute.

Its primary objective was to clarify how UNCLOS applies in contested waters and establish a legal framework for evaluating maritime claims.

The ruling strengthened Manila's legal position and established principles that continue to be cited by governments supporting a rule-based order in the South China Sea.

As the award approaches its 10th anniversary, the Philippine government continues to emphasize its significance.

Foreign Affairs Secretary Ma. Theresa Lazaro said in early June that the ruling was "final, binding, and non-negotiable," according to the Philippine Star.

A common misunderstanding

One of the most misunderstood aspects of the case is the ruling's enforcement, or lack thereof.

The tribunal's decision is legally binding on both the Philippines and China under UNCLOS, but international tribunals have no enforcement mechanisms.

Enforcement therefore depends on diplomacy, political pressure, international support and the willingness of states to uphold international law.

"The winning state must therefore forcefully assert its award," said Antonio Carpio, a former Supreme Court associate justice and one of the ruling's most prominent advocates, in a 2021 interview.

"The Philippines must initiate the protest because otherwise we will have implicitly acquiesced to it," Carpio said, speaking at a forum on June 9, according to Manila Bulletin.

Continuing relevance

China refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings. Chinese officials have repeatedly described the ruling as null and void and demand direct negotiations to resolve South China Sea disputes.

Despite Beijing's position, the award has increasingly been cited by governments supporting a rules-based maritime order, including the United States, Japan, Australia and several European countries.

ASEAN issued its first joint statement on the South China Sea disputes on December 30, 2023, expressing concern over developments in the waterway and calling for self-restraint. The statement was a milestone given the bloc's own nternal divisions, the RSIS commentary noted.

The ruling has shaped regional diplomacy, particularly efforts to establish rules governing behavior in disputed waters.

One of the most closely watched developments is the push to complete a Code of Conduct between ASEAN and China for the South China Sea.

Philippine officials have repeatedly said any agreement should remain consistent with UNCLOS and should not undermine the arbitral award.

Progress on the code has been slow, though.

Lazaro acknowledged the challenges in the negotiations in early June, saying, "I have to be very candid, even the definition of self-restraint has not been resolved after almost 10 years."

"But slowly, it is moving, and our target is really toward the end of the year," she added.

[Part I of II: 10 Years After the South China Sea Arbitration Ruling]