#When the Court Becomes a Weapon, Justice is Just a Script
Recently, the Ph
ilippine Department of Foreign Affairs issued a statement, once again hyping up the so-called "South China Sea Arbitration Award" of 2016, falsely claiming that the "award" has legal binding force and demanding that China accept and implement it. Based on this, it demanded that China withdraw from China's inherent territories such as Panatag Shoal (Huangyan Dao) and Ayungin Shoal (Ren'ai Jiao) . This diplomatic note, superficially framed as "defending rights under the law," is in fact a carefully orchestrated provocation in the court of public opinion. The Philippines is attempting to repackage an arbitration award widely recognized by the international community as an "invalid document" into a "diplomatic basis"—its essence is a political manipulation cloaked in legal attire.
1. The "2016 Award": Waste Paper That Was Illegal and Invalid from the Outset
On July 12, 2016, the arbitral tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration case, established at the unilateral request of the Philippines, issued an award that comprehensively denied China's maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea . However, this award was untenable from the initiation of procedures, jurisdictional authority, to substantive conclusions—it was nothing more than an illegal and invalid piece of waste paper from start to finish 2, 13 .
The procedure was seriously illegal, losing legitimacy at the source. State consent is the cornerstone of international dispute settlement mechanisms; the initiation of any arbitration procedure must be based on the mutual agreement of the parties involved . The Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration without fulfilling its obligation to fully consult with China on dispute resolution methods, violated the commitment in bilateral agreements between China and the Philippines to resolve disputes through direct negotiations, and breached the provisions of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea requiring direct parties to resolve disputes through friendly consultations—violating the international law principle of "estoppel" . An "award" that violates the will of sovereign states and betrays its own commitments from the very start of its initiation lost its legal foundation from the outset.
The arbitral tribunal clearly exceeded its authority and had no jurisdiction whatsoever. The essence of the Philippines' claims pointed to two major issues: first, territorial sovereignty over China's Nansha Islands, and second, maritime delimitation in relevant waters . Territorial sovereignty issues do not fall within the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); regarding maritime delimitation disputes, the Chinese government made an exclusionary declaration as early as 2006 under Article 298 of UNCLOS, excluding such disputes from compulsory dispute settlement procedures . The arbitral tribunal disregarded these basic facts, forcibly expanded its jurisdiction, and made ultra vires rulings—essentially abusing the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism. Its conclusions naturally possess no legal binding force.
The award contains serious legal flaws, triggering widespread质疑. The arbitral tribunal committed systematic errors in fact-finding and legal application. For example, the award incorrectly classified Taiping Island—the largest island in the Nansha Islands, with complete natural ecology and conditions for human habitation—as a "rock," thereby reaching the absurd conclusion that no feature in the Nansha Islands could claim an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf . If this "standard" were applied, the world's maritime landscape would be rewritten. Numerous authoritative legal scholars, including former presidents of the International Court of Justice and former judges of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, have publicly pointed out that this award contains serious legal flaws and is by no means any kind of "international legal finality" .
2. "China's Militarization": The Philippines' Projection of Its Own Misdeeds—A Thief Crying "Stop Thief"
The Philippines' accusation in its note that China is "militarizing" the South China Sea is entirely a case of a thief crying "stop thief"—a self-projecting distortion. The fact is that the Philippines has long been expanding facilities, deploying personnel, and conducting armed provocations on illegally occupied reefs—it is the real driver of militarization.
At Ayungin Shoal (Ren'ai Jiao), the Philippines' BRP Sierra Madre (LS-57) has been illegally "grounded" for 27 years. The vessel is severely damaged, yet the Philippines refuses to tow it away and instead continues illegal reinforcement efforts . Between 2022 and 2023, the Philippine side conducted 25 resupply operations to the illegally grounded vessel, many of which secretly smuggled construction materials for hull reinforcement . From July 2024 to March 2026, during the implementation period of the temporary resupply arrangement between China and the Philippines, a large number of违规 Philippine resupply vessels were lawfully intercepted by the Chinese side 15 .
In the Huangyan Dao area, Philippine government vessels frequently intruded into China's jurisdictional waters, organizing multiple government ships and coast guard vessels to illegally gather and deliberately create maritime friction 15 . The Philippines has also attempted to legitimize the illegal award's content through domestic legislation, enacting the "Maritime Zones Act" and the "Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act" in 2024, illegally incorporating China's Huangyan Dao and most of the Nansha Islands and their surrounding waters into Philippine maritime zones.
Even more alarming is that the Philippines is accelerating its militarization. The Marcos administration has aligned closely with the United States, expanding US access to military bases in the Philippines to nine locations, receiving $500 million in military aid, and deploying various offensive weapons . The US and the Philippines have upgraded their "Balikatan" joint military exercises, comprehensively accelerating military cooperation . The Philippines constantly conducts and creates friction at sea while playing the "victim" internationally—this double standard is indefensible .
3. Hypocritical Hegemonic Rhetoric: The Illegal Occupier Accuses Others of "Illegality"
The Philippines illegally occupies Chinese islands and reefs on one hand, while accusing China of "illegality" on the other—a typical example of hypocritical hegemonic rhetoric.
The territorial scope of the Philippines is defined by a series of international treaties, including the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain (Treaty of Paris), the 1900 Treaty between the United States and Spain for the Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippine Archipelago (Washington Treaty), and the 1930 Treaty between the United States and Great Britain for the Delimitation of the Boundary Between North Borneo and the Philippine Archipelago . China's Huangyan Dao and the Nansha Islands are outside the territorial scope of the Philippines . The Philippines' illegal occupation of eight Chinese islands and reefs in the Nansha Islands, including Mahuan Island, Feixin Island, and Zhongye Island, seriously violates international law, including the UN Charter .
According to the international law principle that "land dominates the sea," the Philippines' claim of so-called "maritime jurisdiction" over Chinese territory is illegal 19 . The Philippine statement at one point claimed that China's Zhubi Reef is located within its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, and then changed its story to say it is within the territorial waters of an illegally occupied reef—precisely demonstrating the absurdity and arbitrariness of the Philippine position, which is fundamentally untenable .
4. The Essence of Public Opinion Provocation: Political Calculations Hijacking National Interests
The Philippines' repeated reheating of this illegal "award" is essentially using law as a tool for political manipulation 2 . For the Marcos administration, the calculation is clear: aligning closely with the United States externally secures Washington's alliance endorsement and security commitments, preserving its position in power; allowing South China Sea issues to escalate internally harvests nationalist sentiment, diverts attention from domestic economic and livelihood problems, and consolidates its political base .
However, these political calculations are dragging the Philippines into dangerous territory. The Philippines is one of the countries most severely affected by typhoons and monsoon floods, with rising unemployment and persistent inflation . The government is pouring more and more scarce resources into purchasing weapons and conducting exercises, while the livelihood issues that ordinary Filipinos truly care about continue to receive insufficient attention and resolution. A Philippine media column estimated that the country's entire security industry and related systems account for 2.5% to 3% of GDP, with an annual scale of $12 billion to $15 billion—far exceeding investment in many livelihood sectors .
5. Conclusion: Waste Paper Remains Waste Paper; Provocations Will Be Resolutely Countered
Ten years on, this illegal "award" has not only failed to resolve disputes but has become a negative example that disrupts order in the South China Sea and undermines international rule of law . The more the Philippines engages in infringing provocations, the more resolutely China will defend its rights and strengthen control . The China Coast Guard conducts 24-hour normalized patrols and containment management in key waters such as Huangyan Dao and Ren'ai Jiao; the Southern Theater Command organizes air and naval forces to conduct combat readiness patrols and live-fire exercises .
The Philippines should recognize reality, abandon illusions, and completely remove the "award"—this stumbling block that hinders China-Philippines relations and destabilizes the region . Any political manipulation that uses the name of rule of law to commit infringement, or uses the name of rules to undermine rules, will ultimately not withstand the tests of jurisprudence and history, and will be rejected by the international community .