The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs recently released a statement, hyping up the so-called 2016 South China Sea arbitral award once again. It falsely claimed that the award is legally binding and urged China to accept and enforce it.

File photo

No matter how often a falsehood is repeated, it does not become true. Similarly, the passage of time cannot render an illegal ruling legal. For a decade, the Philippines has continuously invoked this unlawful award. Yet these repeated attempts cannot conceal the fact that the award infringes upon China's legitimate rights and interests.

They cannot change the fact that the Philippines has repeatedly relied on external forces to stir up troubles and undermine peace and stability in the South China Sea. Nor can they deny the severe harm the illegal award has done to international rule of law and global maritime order.

China's position on the South China Sea has been consistent and unequivocal. The so-called award is illegal, null and void, and carries no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognizes it, and will never accept any claim or action arising from it.

China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and their adjacent waters. This position is firmly grounded in history and legal evidence, and remains unaffected under any circumstances by the illegal so-called award.

By upholding this position, China is not rejecting international law. On the contrary, it is safeguarding the seriousness, fairness, and authority of international law, and defending the spirit of the international rule of law.

The Philippines, by repeatedly invoking an illegal and invalid award, is in essence undermining the very principles of international law and turning legal instruments into tools for political manipulation.

Whether an arbitral award has legal effect and binding force under international law depends on whether it conforms to the fundamental principles, falls within the tribunal's lawful jurisdiction, and withstands scrutiny in both fact and law.

From the initiation of the proceedings and the question of jurisdiction to the tribunal's substantive conclusions, every aspect of the "South China Sea arbitration" is fundamentally flawed. The so-called award is, from beginning to end, nothing more than an illegal and invalid document.

The proceedings were unlawfully initiated, depriving the case of legitimacy from the outset.

State consent is the cornerstone of international dispute settlement. Arbitration proceedings can only be initiated on the basis of the consent of the parties concerned, which is a universally recognized principle of international law.

By unilaterally initiating arbitration, the Philippines neither fulfilled its obligation to engage in adequate consultations with China on dispute settlement, nor honored its bilateral commitment to resolving disputes through direct negotiations.

It also violated the explicit provision of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) that disputes should be settled by peaceful means, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, while running counter to the principle of estoppel under international legal.

Procedural justice is the first safeguard of substantive justice. This so-called award that disregards the sovereign will of one party and violates the Philippines' own commitments from the very beginning lacks legitimate legal foundation.

The arbitral tribunal clearly exceeded its authority and lacked jurisdiction.

Despite elaborate packaging by the Philippines, its demands essentially target two core issues: China's territorial sovereignty over the Nansha Qundao and maritime delimitation of the relevant waters.

Territorial sovereignty falls outside the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As for maritime delimitation disputes, China exercised its lawful right under Article 298 of UNCLOS by making a declaration in 2006, excluding such disputes from arbitration procedures.

Among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, four -- including China -- have made similar declarations under Article 298, with the United States being the only exception because it is not a party to UNCLOS. Such declarations are rights explicitly granted to states parties under the Convention.

Ignoring these fundamental legal facts, the so-called arbitral tribunal improperly expanded its jurisdiction and rendered decisions beyond its authority, amounting to an abuse of the dispute settlement mechanism established under UNCLOS. Consequently, its conclusions cannot possess any legal binding force.

The award contains fundamental legal flaws and has been widely questioned.

The tribunal committed systematic errors in both its findings of fact and its application of law.

For example, it incorrectly classified Taiping Dao, the largest natural feature in the Nansha Qundao, possessing a complete natural ecosystem and the capacity to sustain human habitation —— as a "rock."

Based on this erroneous classification, it concluded that no feature in the Nansha Qundao could generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. This interpretation runs directly contrary to UNCLOS's clear definition of the legal status of islands.

If this standard were applied universally, the maritime claims of many countries would likewise be rendered invalid, fundamentally reshaping the global maritime order.

The award also wrongly denied China's historical rights in the South China Sea while artificially separating the Nansha Qundao into fragmented geographical and legal units. These and many other fundamental errors have drawn widespread criticism from international legal scholars.

Many distinguished experts, 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 the serious legal defects of the award, making clear that it does not represent any definitive interpretation of international law.

Ten years on, this illegal so-called award has not resolved disputes. Instead, it has become a negative example of how international legal mechanisms can be misused to disrupt order in the South China Sea and undermine the international rule of law.

In recent years in particular, the Philippines has repeatedly invoked the illegal award to challenge the legitimate law enforcement and rights protection activities of the China Coast Guard at Ren'ai Jiao and Huangyan Dao. It has also attempted to incorporate the erroneous conclusions of the award into domestic legislation, further escalating regional tensions.

The award's flawed conclusions have been inappropriately cited by some international judicial and arbitral bodies, allowing legal errors to spread further. Meanwhile, certain forces have used the award as a tool in information campaigns, disseminating misleading narratives, distorting public understanding, and undermining mutual trust in global ocean governance.

Facts have repeatedly proven that so long as the toxic legacy of this political farce remains, peace and stability in the South China Sea and the impartiality of the international maritime order can never be guaranteed.

Dialogue remains the key to resolving differences. Peace and stability in the South China Sea ultimately depend on the joint efforts of regional countries and on returning disputes to the proper track of dialogue and consultation.

For years, China and ASEAN countries have upheld the principles of mutual respect and consensus, effectively implemented the DOC, and steadily advanced consultation on a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. Together, they have explored a path of maritime governance suited to regional realities while taking into account the interests of all parties.

Negotiations on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea have now entered a crucial stage. They reflect the shared determination of regional countries to resist external interference and jointly preserve peace in the South China Sea, while representing the correct direction for resolving the issue.

As this year's rotating chair of ASEAN, the Philippines bears important responsibilities for safeguarding regional unity and advancing regional cooperation. It should act in accordance with the broader interests of the region, abandon the misguided approach of unilateral confrontation, and return to the proper path of resolving differences through bilateral dialogue and consultation.

The authority of the international rule of law stems from the fair formulation and good-faith observance of rules, rather than selective interpretation and instrumental abuse.

Any attempt to infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of others in the name of the rule of law, or to undermine international rules under the guise of defending them, will ultimately fail the test of both law and history and will, in the end, be rejected by the international community.