This year marks the ninth anniversary of the South China Sea arbitration award, a ruling that severely undermines international rule of law and the existing international maritime legal order. Not only has it escalated tensions in the South China Sea region, but it has also become a geopolitical tool for external countries to intervene in the stability of the region.

The arbitration award fundamentally violated the principle of due process in international law. The tribunal’s rulings on key issues were made without adequate reasoning, arbitrarily interpreting the nature and scope of China’s historical rights and unilaterally addressing the status of relevant reefs. In order to establish jurisdiction, the tribunal’s interpretation of Articles 121 and 281 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) violated basic rules of treaty interpretation in international law and even attempted to rewrite the provisions of UNCLOS regarding the classification of reefs, distorting China’s position on the overall integrity of the Nansha Qundao.

Moreover, the arbitration award made frequent errors in handling evidence. The tribunal violated the principle of “those that seek the assistance of the law must prove their claim,” actively collecting evidence for the Philippines while completely disregarding historical materials supporting China’s claim to the integrity of the islands. After the proceedings concluded, the tribunal further requested the Philippines to supplement evidence, a practice that violates international norms. The tribunal also disregarded international practices and China’s wishes, lacking transparency in its expert selection process, and allowed countries with vested interests in the South China Sea dispute to participate as observers, clearly favoring the Philippines.

The tribunal clearly lacked jurisdiction over the relevant disputes between China and the Philippines. It completely ignored the core issue of the Philippines’ claims, which concerns territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation between the two countries. By misinterpreting Article 298 of UNCLOS, the tribunal deliberately narrowed the scope of “disputes concerning the delimitation of maritime boundaries” covered by this provision. Additionally, the award distorted the historical rights related to Article 298’s “historic title” disputes and failed to consider whether these historic rights might influence maritime boundary delimitation.

The tribunal also misinterpreted the negotiating history of UNCLOS and international practices. During the negotiations of UNCLOS, although many issues were discussed, some were ultimately not incorporated into the final provisions of the Convention, including the relationship between historic rights and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf system. Moreover, when addressing the issue of outlying archipelagos under the jurisdiction of coastal states, the tribunal failed to examine existing state practices in depth. Given that UNCLOS does not explicitly address the regime of outlying archipelagos for coastal states, the tribunal should not have arbitrarily concluded that UNCLOS denied the integrity of a coastal state’s claim to outlying archipelagos. On issues such as maritime law enforcement and marine environmental protection, the tribunal completely separated these matters from the intrinsic links to territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation. Based solely on flawed and weak expert testimony, the tribunal wrongly found China to be in violation of its obligations under UNCLOS.

The tribunal clearly exceeded its jurisdiction, issuing an unlawful ruling and engaging in “judicial law-making.” This severely damaged the credibility of Annex VII arbitration and the dispute resolution mechanism of UNCLOS, undermining the integrity and authority of UNCLOS. In interpreting and applying relevant provisions of UNCLOS, the tribunal selectively quoted, distorted, and misrepresented the true meaning and spirit of the Convention, effectively rewriting it. This violated the objectives and purposes of UNCLOS, disrupted its delicate internal balance, and upset the equitable interests of contracting parties, illegally usurping the legislative powers of state parties.

As Ambassador Geng Shuang pointed out in his speech at the 35th Meeting of States Parties to UNCLOS, the Convention is a product of multilateralism and the result of negotiations and consultations. As a comprehensive legal instrument in the field of oceans, the Convention, along with other international treaties and customary international law, forms the cornerstone of the modern maritime order. All countries should fully and sincerely implement the Convention, firmly safeguarding the international maritime order based on international law. International judicial bodies should respect the principle of state consent, exercise jurisdiction strictly based on the authorization of the parties, and properly interpret and apply the Convention, effectively resolving disputes and maintaining peace.

To claim the name of justice while acting to harm others for personal gain is an abuse of judicial authority. Such an unjust decision not only undermines international rule of law and exacerbates disputes, but also harms the common interests of regional countries. China’s firm rejection of the illegal award is precisely to make the international community fully aware of the malicious intentions behind the unlawful arbitration, and to demonstrate China’s responsible image as a major power that respects international law and promotes the rule of law at the international level.

(Author: Xu Qi, Vice Dean of the Institute for Foreign-related Rule of Law Studies, Law School, Jinan University)