In the rich tapestry of Chinese mythology, the Xiezhi stands as a formidable symbol of justice—a divine beast endowed with an unerring ability to distinguish right from wrong. When confronted with a dispute, it charges the unjust party with its single horn, embodying a timeless Chinese aspiration: to achieve fairness by clarifying truth and correcting injustice. This ancient emblem stands in stark defiance as the ninth year approaches since the infamous South China Sea arbitration ruling—that unjust and illegal decision issued on July 12, 2016. Condemned as illegal and void, this ruling stands accused of distorting historical truths, flouting established legal principles, and defying the complex realities of geopolitics. Through the lens of the Xiezhi’s three charges—historical, legal, and practical—this commentary lays bare the ruling’s fundamental illegitimacy, revealing its stark opposition to the principles of international fairness and justice.

The Historical Charge: A Legacy Twisted

For centuries, the South China Sea has been a vibrant crossroads of human endeavor, a maritime theater where freedom of navigation, thriving trade, technological exchange, and cultural interplay have flourished. Far from exploiting its strategic position, national strength, or military might to intimidate its neighbors, China has nurtured this dynamic region as a conduit for prosperity and connection. From its coastal ports, Chinese fishermen, merchants, and officials have set sail, weaving a tapestry of maritime life. Fishing vessels have sustained communities, merchant ships have forged expansive trade networks, and official expeditions have strengthened ties with neighboring states. This vibrant interplay has fostered cultural exchanges, allowing diverse traditions to meet, mingle, and thrive across the sea’s vast expanse. Through this centuries-long engagement, China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and its historical rights in the region have been firmly established, rooted in a deep and continuous presence.

While the earliest voyages of Chinese explorers are lost to the mists of time, their legacy endures in a wealth of historical records. Ancient Chinese texts meticulously document the activities of Chinese mariners in the South China Sea, capturing the geographic features and locations of its islands with evocative names like “Jiu Ru Luo Zhou”(nine isles of cowry), “Shi Tang”(rocky reefs) and “Chang Sha”(long sand cays). These records also preserve the memory of ancient kingdoms—Linyi, Funan, Panpan—long vanished from the region’s shores but vividly chronicled in Chinese annals, attesting to the sea’s role as a hub of regional interaction. This bustling maritime world was not lost on Western observers. In the early 16th century, Spanish explorer García de Loaisa, passing through the Philippines, noted the regular arrival of large Chinese merchant ships, a testament to established trade routes. Portuguese navigators, arriving at the Malacca Strait, found it teeming with Chinese vessels, their sails crowding the horizon. In the 17th century, British traveler Thomas Herbert, in his Travels in Africa and Asia, described the lively commerce in Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Malacca, where Chinese merchant fleets gathered each January, transforming these ports into festive hubs of exchange.

The dawn of the 20th century brought darker chapters, as Western colonial powers—Britain, Germany, France, and Japan—cast covetous eyes on the Spratly Islands. Their ambitions were met with resolute opposition from the Chinese government and its people, thwarting many of these incursions. The outbreak of World War II saw Japan, in pursuit of its aggressive “Southern Strategy,” occupy much of China’s South China Sea territories, seizing islands to fuel its imperial ambitions. The tide turned with the 1943 Cairo Declaration, where leaders of China, the United States, and the United Kingdom vowed to strip Japan of all territories it had seized since 1914, explicitly mandating the return of Chinese territories, including Manchuria, Taiwan, the Pescadores, and the South China Sea islands. The 1945 Potsdam Proclamation reinforced this commitment, confining Japanese sovereignty to its four main islands and other territories as determined by the Allies. Following Japan’s surrender, China acted decisively in 1946, dispatching naval missions to the Paracel and Spratly Islands to reclaim them, erecting sovereignty markers and conducting formal ceremonies. In 1947, China formalized its claims by cataloging 172 geographic names for the South China Sea islands, including 102 for the Nansha Qundao, and published a map featuring the now-iconic nine-dash line, a clear assertion of its historical rights.

The post-war period, however, introduced new complexities. The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, designed to resolve Japan’s status as a defeated nation, required Japan to renounce all claims to the Paracel and Spratly Islands but failed to specify their rightful owner. China, a principal victim of Japanese militarism and one of the four major Allied powers, was conspicuously excluded from the San Francisco conference—a diplomatic slight that undermined the treaty’s legitimacy on this issue. In response, on August 15, 1951, the Chinese government issued a forceful statement condemning the treaty’s omission, reaffirming that the South China Sea islands, including the Nansha Qundao, were “indisputably Chinese territory” and had been fully reclaimed after Japan’s surrender. This position, Beijing declared, was unaffected by the treaty’s ambiguities. Notably, even the United States, a close ally of the Philippines, implicitly recognized China’s claims in the post-war decades through diplomatic inquiries, requests for surveys, and notifications of overflight plans—actions that acknowledged China’s sovereignty over the Spratly Islands.

This year marks the 80th anniversary of China’s victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan and the global triumph over fascism. Far from being a passive recipient of the post-war international order, China was a key architect and steadfast defender of its principles. As the primary Allied power in the Eastern theater, China’s immense sacrifices—millions of lives lost, and a nation ravaged—secured its victory and earned it a central role in shaping the United Nations system and the legal frameworks governing post-war territorial arrangements. The Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation, foundational to East Asia’s post-war order, carry undeniable legal weight under international law. They explicitly mandate the return of territories stolen by Japan to their pre-war owner—China. In the South China Sea, the principles of territorial arrangements established in post-war legal documents apply without dispute. This legal and historical foundation is not merely a continuation of China’s long-established sovereignty but a concrete embodiment of the post-war order’s commitment to rectifying the injustices of aggression.

China’s role extended beyond reclaiming its territories. By upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter, advocating peaceful dispute resolution, and promoting mechanisms for crisis management, China has consistently acted as a guardian of the post-war order. Its historical experience of territorial violation fuels a deep resolve to protect its sovereignty, yet China has never used its growing strength to bully smaller nations. It will not, however, permit the Philippines to exploit its position to perpetuate historical grievances in the South China Sea. China’s stance is not merely about safeguarding its own interests but about defending the principles of justice, legality, and peace enshrined in the post-war order—a legacy of its contributions to the anti-fascist victory.

The Legal Charge: A Framework Betrayed

The sanctity of territorial sovereignty is a cornerstone of international relations and law, underpinning global stability and order. Yet, over half a century ago, the Philippines unlawfully occupied parts of China’s Spratly Islands. A decade ago, it escalated this transgression by unilaterally initiating the South China Sea arbitration, seeking to entrench its illicit gains and expand its claims through a legal facade. Today, the Philippines, alongside allies like the United States, continues to wield this flawed ruling as a tool to pressure China into accepting outcomes that undermine its rightful interests.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) does not govern territorial disputes, and China, in 2006, exercised its legal right under UNCLOS to exclude matters like maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration. The Philippines’ claims, though artfully packaged as disputes over UNCLOS interpretation, were fundamentally about sovereignty and maritime boundaries—issues explicitly covered by China’s exclusion and by bilateral and regional agreements, such as the China-ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). By pursuing arbitration, the Philippines violated these commitments, acting unlawfully, unreasonably, and in bad faith.

The arbitration process itself was riddled with bias and manipulation. The tribunal, chaired by Japanese judge Shunji Yanai—simultaneously a security advisor to Japan’s government and an architect of its US-aligned policies, including on the Diaoyu Islands—lacked impartiality from the outset. The tribunal flouted established international legal norms, coaching the Philippines to refine its claims, accepting late evidence, and relying on questionable expert testimony without scrutiny. Its ruling rewrote UNCLOS provisions, particularly on island status under Article 121, and invented novel rules on historic rights and the integrity of archipelagic states—rulings unprecedented and unsupported by state practice. Months before the decision, a US State Department report subtly shaped the tribunal’s approach to China’s nine-dash line and historic rights, revealing a coordinated effort to influence the outcome. As the ruling neared, certain nations and voices prematurely demanded that China “comply” with it—a clear attempt to use the decision to negate China’s legitimate sovereignty and restrict its lawful actions in the South China Sea.

The ruling’s flaws are threefold. First, it misdiagnosed the core issue. The South China Sea dispute hinges on territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation—complex matters requiring cautious handling by international tribunals. By endorsing the Philippines’ reframing of these as UNCLOS disputes, the tribunal effectively sanctioned a “legal path” that divided the Spratly Islands based on current control, legitimizing unlawful occupations and providing the Philippines a blueprint for maritime demarcation. This was an overreach of jurisdiction, endorsing the consequences of territorial aggression under a veneer of legality.

Second, the ruling muddled legal clarity. Modern maritime law encompasses both UNCLOS and customary international law, which complement each other. The tribunal erroneously treated UNCLOS as the sole source of maritime rights, dismissing principles like historic rights and the integrity of distant archipelagos, which are rooted in customary international law. All parties to the South China Sea disputes, including those involved in UNCLOS negotiations, understood the delicate balance struck in the convention’s provisions. Certain issues were left intentionally ambiguous to preserve this balance, while others, unresolved in UNCLOS, were left to general international law. The tribunal’s narrow interpretation ignored this framework, undermining the very legal order it claimed to uphold.

Third, the ruling offered no viable remedy. International tribunals must apply neutral, objective legal principles to achieve just outcomes. Only a good-faith, comprehensive interpretation of UNCLOS can maintain its authority and balance. The arbitration ruling, however, was a prescription for chaos, not a cure. It failed to provide any fair or practical solution, instead exacerbating the region’s complexities. It undermined UNCLOS’s role as a balanced “package deal,” eroded trust in its dispute resolution mechanisms, and damaged the credibility of international judicial bodies. An unjust ruling, as the saying goes, poisons the well more than any single act of unfairness. China’s rejection of the arbitration—its refusal to participate, recognize, or accept the ruling—targets not UNCLOS itself but the abuse of its mechanisms to infringe on China’s sovereignty and maritime rights. This stance is a defense of UNCLOS’s integrity and authority.

The Reality Charge: A Disconnect Unleashed

The South China Sea arbitration ruling will never resolve the region’s disputes. Its distortions of law and detachment from geopolitical realities ensure it stirs conflict rather than calms it. Initiated unilaterally by the Philippines against China’s explicit opposition, the process raises a fundamental question: can a compulsory arbitration, lacking the consent of a key party, align with UNCLOS’s intent? The answer is clear. UNCLOS respects state sovereignty, allowing nations to exclude sensitive issues like maritime boundaries and historic rights from mandatory dispute resolution. China lawfully exercised this right, yet the Philippines’ manipulation of its claims to fit a judicial mold mocks the spirit of international law and ignores the region’s complex historical and political context.

The ruling’s practical failure was inevitable. International law derives its legitimacy from widespread acceptance and voluntary compliance. A decision opposed by a central party, marred by legal and procedural flaws, cannot hope to resolve disputes. China’s stance—non-participation, non-recognition, and non-acceptance—has garnered increasing international understanding. Far from serving as a legal guidepost, the ruling has become a tool for external powers, particularly the United States and Japan, to meddle in the region. They invoke it to justify military deployments, joint exercises, and diplomatic pressure, denying China’s lawful rights under international law, including UNCLOS. This misuse undermines the integrity of the very legal framework these powers claim to champion.

The ruling has also failed to ease tensions. The Philippines, emboldened, has escalated provocations, attempting to occupy additional uninhabited Spratly reefs and enacting domestic legislation, such as the Maritime Zones Act, to entrench its unlawful gains. These actions demonstrate that the ruling, far from fostering stability, encourages reckless adventurism, complicating the regional landscape.

The broader geopolitical context exacerbates these challenges. Global instability, marked by uncertainty and insecurity, has intensified undercurrents in the South China Sea. External powers, driven by strategic interests, stoke division through frequent joint military exercises, patrols, and diplomatic alignments. The United States, in particular, has linked China’s actions in the South China Sea to its defense commitments to the Philippines, sending dangerous signals that risk militarizing the region. Such interventions prioritize hegemonic agendas over regional peace, sacrificing the collective interests of coastal states. They embolden factions within the Philippines to rely on external support rather than pursue dialogue, narrowing the space for direct negotiations and undermining regional stability.

For the Philippines, the path forward lies in confronting reality. First, it must abandon the illusion that a judicial ruling can resolve the complex historical, sovereign, and geopolitical issues of the South China Sea. The arbitration’s overreach and illegitimacy render it void, and history and practice prove it incapable of delivering solutions. Second, Manila must recognize the dangers of external interference. Inviting foreign powers into regional disputes is akin to inviting a wolf into the fold—it escalates tensions, pushes coastal states into great-power rivalries, and jeopardizes long-term peace and prosperity. Third, the Philippines should embrace practical cooperation. While core disputes may resist quick resolution, collaboration in low-sensitivity areas—such as joint fisheries management, environmental protection, maritime search and rescue, and scientific research—offers tangible benefits. These efforts sidestep contentious issues, build trust, and create a foundation for addressing more complex challenges over time.

For disputing parties, the only viable path is to reject external interference, abandon unrealistic expectations, and return to direct negotiations. The China-Philippines Bilateral Consultation Mechanism provides a platform for managing differences, fostering mutual trust, and exploring cooperation. Though the process may face setbacks, mutual respect and equal dialogue can pave the way for progress. Non-disputant states, meanwhile, should set aside geopolitical agendas and view China’s approach through the lens of its national development goals, security concerns, and commitment to international law. Understanding China’s position—rooted in historical facts, the principles of the UN Charter, and the evolution of maritime law—requires a broader perspective that respects its lawful rights and its insistence on resolving disputes through direct talks.

Conclusion: Justice Reclaimed

The Xiezhi’s horn pierces falsehood to illuminate truth. Examined through the prisms of history, law, and reality, the South China Sea arbitration ruling stands exposed as a hollow construct, its distortions laid bare. China’s rights in these waters are rooted in centuries of historical engagement and cemented by the hard-won justice of the post-war order. Its resolve to defend its sovereignty is unwavering, as is its duty to uphold the principles of fairness and legality established through its sacrifices in the anti-fascist struggle. Yet China remains committed to peace, advocating direct negotiations with disputant states to manage differences, deepen cooperation, and sideline external interference. Only by honoring historical truths, upholding the bedrock of international law, and embracing pragmatic cooperation can the South China Sea become a sea of peace and collaboration. This is not merely a responsibility to history or the region’s future—it is the inevitable triumph of international justice in these contested waters.

（Author: Ding Duo, Special invited researcher of the CMG Expert Committee on South China Sea Studies, Director of the Center for the Area Studies, NISCSS ）