top of page
Search

Beijing’s defiance of 2016 South China Sea ruling fuels credibility concerns

Article by Marie D.

Published on April 22, 2026 12:59PM


Beijing's persistent refusal to accept the 2016 arbitral decision on the South China Sea has reignited questions not only about legal interpretation but also about Beijing’s credibility and motives in maritime governance, a Manila‑based analyst has warned. ¹


Don McLain Gill, a lecturer in international relations and geopolitical analyst at De La Salle University, said Beijing has placed its “narrowly driven interests above international law,” even as it claims to uphold the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). ¹ ² This “two‑track” approach, invoking international law when convenient while spurning an adverse ruling, undermines its image as a responsible neighbor and a consistent rule‑of‑law actor, Gill told INQUIRER.net. ¹


China was among the first countries to sign UNCLOS in 1982 and ratified the pact in 1996, calling itself a “full and faithful” implementer of the convention and a key contributor to its creation. ³ However, Gill argues that Beijing applies UNCLOS selectively, insisting on strict compliance from other states while rejecting the 2016 arbitral award that found its expansive “nine‑dash line” and many activities in the South China Sea incompatible with the treaty. ¹ ⁴


China maintains that the tribunal established under Annex VII of UNCLOS had no jurisdiction because, in its view, the case involved questions of sovereignty and maritime delimitation rather than the interpretation of UNCLOS itself. ⁴ Beijing has repeatedly declared the ruling “invalid,” stating that it “gravely violated UNCLOS and general international law” and that it “does not accept or recognize the award.” ¹ ⁴


Clash of maritime laws with Beijing has also turned the tables on the Philippines, accusing Manila of violating UNCLOS and international law in its defense of what it calls the West Philippine Sea (WPS). ¹ ⁵ These allegations have been raised both in legal narratives and in operational contexts, from Manila’s 2013 initiation of arbitration to recurring maritime confrontations in contested waters. ¹ ⁴


In 2024, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed the Maritime Zones Act (Republic Act No. 12064) and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act (RA 12065) to clarify and reinforce the Philippines’ maritime entitlements, including around the disputed Panatag Shoal. ⁵ China has strongly condemned the approvals, arguing that the Maritime Zones Act “illegally includes” Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Dao) and key areas of the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands) within Philippine maritime zones and effectively attempts to cement the 2016 award in domestic law. ⁵ ⁶ ⁷


Through its official statements, Beijing insists its response is consistent with “international law and common practices,” portraying Manila as the party distorting legal norms. ³ ⁶ Yet analysts such as Gill see the pattern as evidence of strategic inconsistency, China invokes UNCLOS to call out the Philippines while simultaneously dismissing the same legal framework when it yields an unfavorable outcome. ¹ ⁴


As the South China Sea remains a flashpoint of overlapping claims and growing militarization, Gill’s critique underscores a broader concern, without a demonstrable commitment to take the 2016 decision into account, Beijing’s repeated rhetorical emphasis on the “rule of law on the seas” may increasingly ring hollow in regional and global forums. ¹ ³ ⁴

_______________________________________________________

Notes:


¹ Selective application: China asserts, defies international law at once https://globalnation.inquirer.net/315268/selective-application-china-asserts-defies-international-law-at-once






⁶ Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The People's ... https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zy/gb/202412/t20241218_11498201.html


⁷ Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The People's ... https://ph.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/sgdt/202412/t20241220_11511746.htm

Comments

bottom of page