China Mil Watch Mandarin-source monitoring · Chinese military & security reporting
Independent monitor
Official PRC military media, read in the original
← Daily Brief
South China Sea Doctrine

Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines: Eliminating the Toxic Legacy of the 'South China Sea Arbitration Award' Admits No Delay

中国驻菲大使:清理“南海仲裁案裁决”遗毒刻不容缓
PLA Daily (解放军报) 12 July 2026
View original source ↗
Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Huang Xilian published a bylined op-ed on the tenth anniversary of the 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling, rejecting the tribunal's legal standing, characterizing its composition as biased toward Western states, and demanding the Philippines abandon the award as a precondition for normalized bilateral relations. The piece documents Beijing's sustained refusal to treat the ruling as a legitimate legal baseline and frames Philippine legislative actions—the Maritime Zones Act and Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act—as provocations rather than lawful implementation of the award. The ambassador's explicit demand that Manila 'completely remove' the award extends the standard non-recognition posture into a coercive diplomatic ultimatum, raising the question of whether Beijing is escalating rhetorical pressure ahead of anticipated Philippine moves at Huangyan Island, Ren'ai Reef, or in multilateral forums marking the anniversary.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the so-called 'South China Sea Arbitration Award' unilaterally initiated by the Philippines. Over the past ten years, the illegality and absurdity of the 'South China Sea Arbitration Award,' as well as the harm it has inflicted on China-Philippines relations and the regional situation, have been laid bare for all to see. Comprehensively eliminating its toxic legacy (遗毒) admits no delay.

The 'South China Sea Arbitration Case' was an out-and-out illegal arbitration. 'Respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity,' 'state consent,' and 'pacta sunt servanda' are universally recognized basic principles of international law, and neither international adjudication nor international arbitration can depart from these principles. The essential nature of the matters submitted to arbitration by the Philippines was a dispute over territorial sovereignty between China and the Philippines concerning certain islands and reefs in the South China Sea—a matter outside the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter 'the Convention'). As early as 2006, the Chinese government made an exclusionary declaration pursuant to Article 298 of the Convention, excluding such matters from compulsory dispute-settlement procedures. Resolution of the relevant disputes through negotiation was an agreement reached by China and the Philippines through bilateral documents and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea—a 'double firewall' blocking the Philippines from initiating arbitration. Knowing full well that the legal prerequisites for initiating 'arbitration' were not met, the Philippines nonetheless repackaged its claims, substituted one concept for another, circumvented the 'firewall,' forcibly provoked 'arbitration,' and distorted and abused international law. In this sense, the so-called 'South China Sea Arbitration Case' was illegal from the day it was filed.

The 'South China Sea Arbitration Case' was a political farce dressed in legal garb. The so-called 'Arbitral Tribunal' was absolutely not an 'international court of law' but a makeshift troupe (草台班子) that worked for money, merely using the hall of the Permanent Court of Arbitration for its hearings. In fact, the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea all publicly declared they had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'Arbitral Tribunal.' Of the five arbitrators on the 'Arbitral Tribunal,' apart from the arbitrator designated by the Philippines itself, the other four were appointed by the then-President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Japanese judge Shunji Yanai. Four of the five arbitrators came from Western countries, and the sole African arbitrator had long resided in Europe—the composition of such an 'Arbitral Tribunal' and its related operations manifestly lacked the representativeness required by international law and plainly violated the requirements of procedural justice.

The 'South China Sea Arbitration Award' disregarded basic legal principles and facts and constitutes a manifestly perverse ruling (枉法裁判). For example, it classified Itu Aba Island—the largest island in the Spratly Islands, with an area of 500,000 square meters—as a rock, and on that basis determined that no island or reef in the Spratly Islands could generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. This is entirely inconsistent with the facts of the South China Sea and with the provisions of the Convention. If applied as a standard, the maritime order of the world would have to be rewritten. Such examples are too numerous to count, fully demonstrating that the fundamental purpose of this farce was to negate China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. China's refusal to accept or participate in the 'arbitration' and its non-recognition of the 'award' constitute both a defense of China's sovereignty and rights and interests and a defense of the authority and dignity of international law.

The 'South China Sea Arbitration Award' has continuously damaged China-Philippines relations and regional stability. Over the past ten years, the Philippine side has stubbornly clung to the erroneous position of the 'award,' attempting to unilaterally implement its contents, enacting the so-called 'Maritime Zones Act' and 'Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act' to pursue legal encroachment (法理侵权), and continuously creating incidents and provocative infringements at China's Huangyan Island, Ren'ai Reef, Xianbin Reef, Tiexian Reef, and other islands, reefs, and sea areas. Anti-China forces in the Philippines and extra-regional countries periodically invoke the 'award' to inflame Philippine nationalist sentiment and stoke antagonism between China and the Philippines. The facts have proven that the 'award' has not only failed to resolve the maritime disputes between China and the Philippines but has instead created enormous difficulties for the development of bilateral relations and for both sides' management of maritime issues. It has become a 'poisoned thorn' (毒刺) driven deep between China and the Philippines and a pretext for extra-regional forces to interfere in the regional situation.

China's position on handling maritime issues is consistent and unambiguous: what is ours, we will not yield a single inch of; what is not ours, we will not take a single inch of. China firmly upholds its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, does not accept or recognize the so-called 'South China Sea Arbitration Case' or its 'award,' and does not accept any claims or actions based on the 'award.' China's capacity to defend its sovereignty, security, and development interests and to shape a situation of peace and stability in the South China Sea continues to grow. The higher the Philippine side jumps in its provocative infringements, the more resolutely China will defend its rights and strengthen management and control. At the same time, China insists on resolving maritime disputes through bilateral negotiations and consultations, and is committed to working together with ASEAN countries to implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and to strive for the early conclusion of a 'Code of Conduct in the South China Sea,' jointly safeguarding peace and stability in the South China Sea.

China's position and claims are laid out here in plain terms. They have not changed over the past ten years, and they will not change in the future. For the Philippines, the most pressing task is to recognize reality, abandon illusions, completely remove the 'award'—this stumbling block that obstructs China-Philippines relations and undermines regional stability—and achieve the earliest possible return of bilateral relations to the right track.

(The author is the Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines)

Original Chinese
今年是菲律宾单方面提起的所谓“南海仲裁案裁决”出台第十年。10年来,“南海仲裁案裁决”的非法性和荒谬性,以及给中菲关系和地区局势带来的伤害已暴露无遗,全面清理其遗毒刻不容缓。 “南海仲裁案”是一场彻头彻尾的非法仲裁。“尊重国家主权和领土完整”“国家同意”和“约定必须遵守”是众所周知的国际法基本原则,不管是国际司法还是国际仲裁都不能脱离这些原则。菲律宾提起仲裁事项的本质是中菲之间关于南海部分岛礁的领土主权争端,不属于《联合国海洋法公约》(以下简称《公约》)调整范围;中国政府早在2006年就依据《公约》第298条作出排除性声明,将其排除在强制争端解决程序之外。通过谈判方式解决有关争端是中菲两国通过双边文件和《南海各方行为宣言》所达成的协议,这是阻挡菲方提起仲裁的“双重防火墙”。菲律宾明知不具备启动“仲裁”的法律要件,却通过包装诉求、偷换概念,绕开“防火墙”,强行挑起“仲裁”,曲解和滥用国际法。从这个意义上说,所谓“南海仲裁案”从提出之日起就是非法的。 “南海仲裁案”是一出披着法律外衣的政治闹剧。所谓“仲裁庭”,绝不是“国际法庭”,而是一个拿钱办事的草台班子,只是在庭审的时候使用了常设仲裁法院的大厅。事实上,联合国、国际法院、国际海洋法法庭都公开声明,跟“仲裁庭”毫无关系。“仲裁庭”的5个仲裁员,除了菲律宾自己指定的仲裁员,其他4名仲裁员都是由国际海洋法法庭时任庭长、日本籍法官柳井俊二指定的。5名仲裁员中4名来自西方国家,唯一的非洲籍仲裁员长期居住在欧洲,根本不具备国际法要求的代表性,这样的“仲裁庭”构成及有关运作明显违背了程序正义要求。 “南海仲裁案裁决”无视基本法理和事实,是明显的枉法裁判。比如,把南沙最大岛屿,有着50万平方米的太平岛判定为岩礁,进而认定南沙群岛没有任何岛礁可以产生专属经济区和大陆架。这完全不符合南海的事实,也不符合《公约》规定。如果按照这一标准,世界海洋格局要被改写。这种事例不胜枚举,充分说明了这场闹剧的根本目的就是要否定中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益。中方不接受、不参与“仲裁”,不承认“裁决”,既是维护中国的主权和权益,也是维护国际法的权威和尊严。 “南海仲裁案裁决”不断损害中菲关系和地区稳定。10年来,菲方顽固坚持“裁决”错误立场,企图单方面落实“裁决”内容,出台所谓“海洋区域法”“群岛海道法”搞法理侵权,在中国黄岩岛、仁爱礁、仙宾礁、铁线礁等岛礁和海域不断制造事端、侵权挑衅,菲反华势力和域外国家时不时拿“裁决”说事,挑动菲民族主义情绪和中菲两国对立。事实证明,“裁决”非但没能解决中菲之间的涉海争议,反而给双边关系发展和双方管控涉海问题制造了巨大的困难,成为深深扎进中菲之间的一根“毒刺”,成为域外势力干预地区局势的借口。 中方处理涉海问题的立场是一贯和明确的:是我们的,少一分都不行;不是我们的,多一分也不要。中方坚定维护在南海的领土主权和海洋权益,不接受、不承认所谓“南海仲裁案”及其“裁决”,不接受任何基于“裁决”的主张和行动。中方维护主权、安全和发展利益,塑造南海和平稳定态势的能力不断增强,菲方侵权挑衅跳得越高,中方就越是坚决维权,加强管控。同时,中国坚持通过双边谈判协商解决涉海争议,并致力于同东盟国家一道,落实《南海各方行为宣言》,争取尽早达成“南海行为准则”,共同维护南海和平稳定。 中方的立场主张清清楚楚摆在这里,过去10年没有变,未来也是这样。对菲律宾来说,当务之急是认清现实,抛弃幻想,把“裁决”这块阻碍中菲关系和破坏地区稳定的绊脚石彻底搬开,实现双边关系早日重回正轨。 (作者为中国驻菲律宾大使)