Joint Statement on South China Sea Ruling

Recently, the Trump administration joined 13 other nations in a collective statement marking a decade since the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled against China’s claim over much of the South China Sea. This decision deemed those claims invalid.

The statement pointed out that the tribunal’s verdict is “final, legally binding, and conclusive,” asserting that China’s extensive maritime claims lack legal foundation. In addition to the U.S. and the Philippines, which was a claimant in the Hague dispute, the statement saw support from countries like Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, and Romania.

China lays claim to nearly the entire South China Sea, backing its stance with a map that features the “nine-dash line.” This line encircles territories of Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and waters off Indonesia’s Natuna Island. Areas such as the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands involve disputes, with China often asserting its naval presence to intimidate or even sink local vessels that seek to fish or navigate in those waters.

In 2016, the Permanent Court ruled that China’s claim, articulated through the “nine-dash line,” was baseless and that efforts to enforce it contravened international maritime law.

The ruling characterized China’s assertions of historic rights over waters marked by the nine-dash line as violations of treaties, specifically referencing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the established framework for maritime governance. It underscored that these claims lacked legal force as they exceeded China’s geographical and practical rights under the treaty.

The court made it clear: “There is no legal basis for China to claim historical rights to resources within the waters within the nine-dash line.”

The recent joint statement from 14 countries reinforced the ruling’s legitimacy, which China has, for the most part, disregarded.

It highlighted that the judgment rendered ten years prior remains a vital and binding milestone for both China and the Philippines regarding maritime claims. The countries reiterated their stance against China’s extensive claims in the South China Sea, particularly those based on so-called ‘historic rights,’ which they insist are without legal merit. They expressed strong opposition to any destabilizing actions, including coercion that threatens regional peace.

In particular, the statement accused China of employing its coast guard and military to “harass, obstruct, and intimidate” lawful maritime operations from other nations, thus jeopardizing the safety of personnel and fishermen, and seriously undermining regional stability.

The Chinese Communist Party routinely employs its coast guard and military strength to confront Vietnamese, Filipino, and other fishing boats in the area. Furthermore, it has reportedly damaged numerous marine ecosystems in the South China Sea by constructing artificial islands on coral reefs and establishing military bases resembling static aircraft carriers. Marine biology expert John McManus from the University of Miami mentioned in 2020 that several coral reefs in this region were “permanently gone” due to Chinese dredging operations aimed at creating new military outposts.

Back in 2016, the Chinese Communist Party dismissed international law and rejected the Hague ruling as invalid.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the ruling is “invalid and has no binding force.” Chinese leader Xi Jinping declared that other nations’ claims in the South China Sea have been part of China “since ancient times,” indicating that Beijing would not acknowledge the tribunal’s judgment.

In a similarly dismissive tone as the recent joint statement, the Chinese newspaper Global Times referred to the ruling as “a waste of paper” and criticized the nations supporting it, portraying their statements as colonialist. They insisted that “the so-called ‘award’ is merely a non-binding, illegal document,” reiterating that China will not accept any claims based on it.

The article also portrayed the original ruling as a “political farce,” suggesting that the countries supporting the statement were being unreasonable. It questioned the right of these nations, apart from the Philippines, to comment on China’s territorial claims and suggested abandoning what it termed “outdated colonial thinking.” The message was clear: the South China Sea isn’t a playground for external powers, and threats won’t be tolerated.