Ten years after the so-called "South China Sea arbitration award" was unilaterally staged, a group of 14 countries led by the United States has once again chosen to resurrect this long-discredited ruling through a joint statement. Framed as a defense of "international law," the move is, in reality, a calculated political gesture – one that reveals more about geopolitical maneuvering than any genuine concern for "legal" principles.

Among the 14 countries, only the Philippines is directly involved in the South China Sea disputes. The rest, including the United States, Canada, and several European states, are not parties to the disputes, nor do they possess any territorial or maritime claims in the region. Their collective intervention raises an obvious question: On what basis do these external actors presume the authority to comment on, let alone judge, issues of sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea?

Sovereignty disputes must be addressed by the directly concerned parties. This is a foundational principle of international relations. Yet a group of geographically distant nations, by releasing the so-called joint statement, are inserting themselves into a complex regional issue under the pretext of upholding a so-called "rules-based order." Such involvement not only lacks legal standing but also undermines the very norms they claim to defend. If international law is to be respected, it cannot be selectively invoked as a geopolitical tool.

The arbitration "award" itself is neither valid nor binding. More importantly, it has failed to gain recognition even within the region. Over the past decade, ASEAN, as a whole, has not issued a single formal document endorsing the arbitration outcome. This silence is telling. It suggests that the vast majority of regional countries have set aside this so-called "award" in favor of more pragmatic approaches to managing disputes.

Against this backdrop, the persistence of certain Western countries in repeatedly invoking the arbitration raises a deeper concern: External forces are seeking to turn the South China Sea into a geopolitical "flashpoint" in Asia. By amplifying "disputes" and emphasizing confrontation, these forces risk transforming a manageable regional issue into a stage for strategic rivalry.

If these countries are "standing up" for the Philippines as they claim, one would expect a greater emphasis on dialogue, de-escalation, and regional consensus. Instead, they are using a legally disputed ruling as a tool for more leverage in geopolitical competition. By repeatedly bringing up what many in the region regard as an invalid and non-binding document, external actors seek to justify their continued presence and intervention in the South China Sea.

The consequences of their intervention are far from trivial. China and ASEAN countries have been working toward a Code of Conduct aimed at managing disputes and maintaining stability. While progress has been gradual, it reflects a shared commitment to resolving differences through consultation. External interference, however, risks complicating these efforts. By injecting divisive narratives and encouraging confrontation, external powers may hinder the very negotiations that offer the most realistic path to long-term stability.

The South China Sea is no longer a passive arena for great-power projection, and the countries within it are fully capable of managing their own affairs. The region is not a "backyard" for external powers, nor is China a country that can be coerced through intimidation. Attempts to use a so-called joint statement and strategic pressure to influence China's development trajectory are unlikely to succeed. On the contrary, such efforts risk further eroding trust and increasing tensions.

If external actors are genuinely committed to peace and stability, the path forward is not to revive divisive controversies, but to support regional mechanisms and respect the role of directly concerned parties. The future of the South China Sea should be shaped by dialogue, mutual respect, and practical cooperation, not by invalid rulings or external agendas. Only by keeping the process grounded in regional realities can a stable and sustainable order be achieved.

(Author: Jianxi Liu, a Beijing-based political and international relations analyst.)