Beijing Rejects 2016 South China Sea Ruling as “Null and Void”

Article by F. Palafox

Published on July 15, 2026 07:30PM

China’s government has again dismissed the 12 July 2016 South China Sea arbitral award, calling it “null and void” and without binding force, and says it does not accept or recognize it. ¹ Beijing's official position remains unchanged, maintaining its policy of non-acceptance and non-participation in the arbitral proceedings. China has consistently rejected the arbitration, asserting in its 2016 position paper and subsequent official statements that it neither accepted nor participated in the case. ³

Jurisdictional objections

China maintains that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the case or, alternatively, should have declined to exercise its jurisdiction. Beijing argues that the Philippines deliberately framed its submissions to fall within the compulsory dispute settlement provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), while asserting that the underlying issues concern territorial sovereignty over islands and maritime features, as well as maritime boundary delimitation. According to China, these matters fall outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and are therefore not subject to compulsory arbitration under UNCLOS. ¹

“Packaging” sovereignty and delimitation as UNCLOS issues

Beijing asserts that the Philippines "packaged" issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation as questions involving the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). According to China's position, the Philippines' submissions fundamentally concern territorial sovereignty over maritime features and the delimitation of maritime boundaries, matters that Beijing argues fall outside the scope of UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures and therefore should not have been adjudicated through the arbitration.

Carve-outs under UNCLOS Article 298

China invokes Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), under which States Parties may exclude specific categories of disputes from compulsory dispute settlement procedures. Beijing maintains that its declaration under Article 298 excludes disputes concerning maritime boundary delimitation, historic titles, and historic bays from compulsory arbitration. Consequently, China argues that the Philippines was not entitled to invoke the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement mechanism for matters that, in Beijing's view, fall within these excluded categories. ¹

Sovereignty and UNCLOS principles

China characterizes the case as aimed at denying its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests. Beijing says the tribunal’s approach contravenes the object and purpose of UNCLOS and violates principles such as respect for sovereignty and peaceful settlement of disputes.

No effect on China’s rights

In official statements, China reiterates that its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests “shall under no circumstances be affected” by the award. Beijing opposes any claims or actions based on the award.

China’s 10th Arbitration Victory anniversary reaction

The reaffirmation comes as the 10th anniversary of the ruling drew international attention. On 12 July 2026, the Philippines and 13 partner countries issued a joint statement reaffirming the award as “final and binding” and saying there is no legal basis for China’s expansive maritime claims. Beijing responded by denouncing that statement and urging the countries to stop “spreading lies” about the arbitration.

______________________

Notes

¹ Ministry of Foreign Affairs People’s Republic of China. Summary of the Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg_663340/bianhaisi_eng_665278/plpbo/202405/t20240530_11322467.html

² Ministry of Foreign Affairs People’s Republic of China. Summary of the Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines. https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zy/gb/202405/t20240531_11367334.html

³ Permanent Court of Arbitration. The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China). https://pca-cpa.org/ar/cases/7/

⁴ China Daily. Beijing debunks South China Sea statement. https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/636315