FROM THE FRINGES: The South China Sea Arbitration: Reading between the lines

FROM THE FRINGES: The South China Sea Arbitration: Reading between the lines

By Jerome Aning – TheNATIONWEEK.com | July 24, 2026

Reading between the lines of the text of statements, press releases and public documents issued by government agencies and news sources is one of the skills that a journalist will acquire in his or her coverage of various beats.  Unfortunately, in writing straight news stories (as I used to do when I was a print reporter) about current events, one does not always get to write and elaborate what one has read between the lines.  One event was the South China Sea (SCS) Arbitration, with all its diplomatic, legal, military, historical and geopolitical complexities.  The arbitration generated, through the years, plenty of official documents, expert analyses from the private sector, and other information materials that eventually cropped up in news reports here and abroad before, during and after the proceedings.  I wonder if a journalist would ever get enough time to read them all, much less read between the lines, and supply missing, forgotten or complete information, contexts or angles that would help in better understanding the SCS issues from the point of view of all interested parties.

Last July 12, the Philippines marked the 10^th anniversary of its victory in the arbitration initiated under the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) with regards to expansive maritime claims in the SCS, particularly in the portion which Manila has defined as the West Philippine Sea (WPS).  The Philippine government and 13 other foreign countries issued a joint statement described the arbitral award as “a significant milestone” and one that is “final, legally binding, and definitive between China and the Philippines with respect to the maritime entitlements and claims addressed by the Arbitral Tribunal.” I could only shake my head as I noted that the mentioned finality, “bindingness” and “definitiveness” of the award was only for China and the Philippines, and not necessarily for all the other countries mentioned in the joint statement.  Certainly the award cannot be applicable to the United States, which is not even a state-party to the UNCLOS, as well as Japan, which claims a 370-kilometer (200-nautical mile) of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around Okinotori Island, a tiny coral atoll in the Philippine Sea very much similar to the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands that the arbitral tribunal ruled as mere rocks that cannot “cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own” and could not therefore generate an EEZ or continental shelf where sovereign rights may be legally exercised under UNCLOS.

Following the confrontation last July 20 between Philippine Navy servicemen and Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) personnel at Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal,  the National Task Force for the WPS merely mentioned that the shoal was “well within the Philippines’ EEZ and continental shelf.”  US Department of State spokesperson Tommy Piggot also referred to the 2016 award as “final and legally binding on both China and the Philippines.”  The EU Delegation of the Philippines, in a statement reacting to the incident, mentioned that the award was “legal and binding upon the parties to the proceedings.” The municipal government of Kalayaan, which covers Ayungin, issued a bolder statement. It not only referred to the arbitral award but added that the shoal is “a legitimate part” of Kalayaan as it lies within the “archipelagic waters” delineated by Presidential Decree No. 1956 that created the municipality in 1978.

While our arbitral victory should be celebrated and asserted from time to time, what to my mind is the more important fact should not be sidelined and forgotten:  that the SCS/WPS issues are primarily a territorial dispute, or one that involves conflicting claims of sovereignty over islands and territorial waters.  The Philippine claim of sovereignty over the Kalayaan island group based on history, effective occupation and jurisdiction, and international law is strong and should always take precedence at all times over claims about sovereign rights.  The 1734 Murillo Velarde map, the 1900 Treaty of Washington and PD 1956, among other bases, back our maritime entitlements in the Kalayaan.  Yes, the arbitral tribunal ruled that the Ayungin lies within our EEZ, but the shoal is also, first and foremost, an integral part of Philippine territory.  The Kalayaan municipality’s statement correctly pointed out that the “mere presence” of the CCG at Ayungin was illegal.

China, in contrast, consistently refers to its “historic rights” over the SCS as covering both sovereignty and sovereign rights, with focus on the former.  The arbitral tribunal only invalidated China’s expansive maritime claims in the SCS, including those that are based on “historic rights,” as contrary to UNCLOS.  The tribunal said that its decision was “without prejudice to any questions of sovereignty or maritime boundary delimitation.”

In its position paper on the matter of jurisdiction in the arbitration suit that Manila initiated, China drove the point that the “essence” of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the SCS, which is beyond the scope of UNCLOS.  Beijing said that without determining first the sovereignty over a maritime feature, it would be impossible to decide whether maritime claims based on that feature are consistent with UNCLOS.  And even if the tribunal will just concern itself with the interpretation or application of UNCLOS with respect to the scope of maritime entitlements in the SCS (as it did, rejecting Beijing’s arguments), this would still entail a maritime delimitation which, having been excluded by the declaration made by China in 2006 after ratifying the convention, could not be the subject of arbitration.

The Philippines courageously pushed through with the arbitration despite China’s rejection of the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the likelihood that it will also reject the ruling.  Two days before the arbitral award came out, American political scientist Graham Allison, writing on The Diplomat, said that China, like the other great powers, would never accept any international court’s ruling “when (in their view) it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests” and “except in particular cases where they believe it is in their interest to do so.”

It should also always be in the back of our minds that the US and other countries do not take sides in the sovereignty dispute.  I’m pretty sure that other countries would not have taken part in the issuance of a joint statement asserting the Philippine claim of sovereignty over Kalayaan.  The Philippines has seemingly contented itself in advocating the sovereign rights issue backed by the arbitral award in order to get as much international support as it could. 

What then is the purpose of focusing on the sovereign rights issue?  The Philippines’ continuing emphasis on sovereign rights and maritime entitlements and China’s consistent prioritization of the sovereignty issue can only mean that the dispute, as it continues to unfold before the world audience, would not be peacefully settled.  Ten years after the arbitral award, both Manila and Beijing, or any of the other claimants, have not yet engaged in any meaningful dialogue about the sovereignty dispute.

This is now where geopolitical dimension of the dispute comes in, and it was appropriately expounded by the Center of People Empowerment in Government (CenPEG), Quezon City-based policy research institution.  In its statement on the arbitral award’s 10^th anniversary, CenPEG cautioned that the country’s arbitral victory should not be exploited to justify policies that draw the Philippines deeper into the strategic rivalry between the US and China.

“The arbitral ruling belongs to the Filipino people. It is neither a diplomatic trophy to be appropriated by Washington nor an excuse for Beijing to ignore international law,” CenPEG chairman Prof. Roland Simbulan said.  “The Philippines must reject any attempt by external powers to use our legitimate maritime dispute as a pretext for expanding their military footprint or advancing their geopolitical agenda. Our victory in The Hague should reinforce—not weaken—our constitutional commitment to an independent foreign policy.”

Simbulan stressed that while China must respect the arbitral award and refrain from actions that violate Philippine sovereign rights, the Marcos administration must likewise avoid policies that increase the country’s dependence on the United States.  While Manila should continue asserting the arbitral ruling through diplomatic engagement, multilateral cooperation, confidence-building measures, and peaceful dialogue it should also strengthen the country’s own maritime and defense capabilities without excessive reliance on any foreign military power.

“As we commemorate this landmark victory, let us remember that genuine sovereignty means not only defending our seas but also preserving our freedom to determine our own destiny,” Simbulan said. “The Philippines should be a bridge for peace in the region—not a launching pad for conflict.”

“The strongest defense of Philippine sovereignty is not military dependence but an independent foreign policy anchored on diplomacy, regional cooperation, self-reliant defense, and strict adherence to international law. We should engage all countries as friends while refusing to become a pawn in great-power competition,” he added.

—————

Comments are welcome on my page <https://www.facebook.com/fromthefringesph/>.

*         *         *

Influence the Influential. Power Truth. TheNATIONWEEK.com

More than news: we are a defining force in independent journalism, delivering rigorous, unbiased reporting to an engaged, opinion-shaping audience that values integrity. Partner with us to align your brand with trust, reach discerning leaders, and amplify your impact. Your message. Our mission. Unrivaled engagement. Email nationweek@yahoo.com today.