On June 17, 2024, Seaman First Class Jeffrey Facundo’s right thumb was severed when Chinese forces violently tried to stop a civilian vessel and two small Philippine Navy boats from bringing fresh troops and supplies to the grounded BRP Sierra Madre on Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal.
Members of the China Coast Guard, who were armed with axes, machetes, spears and metal rods, rammed and deflated the two rigid hull inflatable boats, destroyed their communications and navigation equipment and seized several disassembled firearms that were still in their packaging.
The attack wounded eight Filipino servicemen in the most serious encounter in the years-long maritime dispute between Manila and Beijing at one of the Philippines’ maritime outposts watching over its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
This was one confrontation that the Philippines had hoped would be avoided after it won an international arbitral award on July 12, 2016 against China. But Beijing rejected the arbitral ruling that invalidated its expansive claims to the South China Sea, including the West Philippine Sea.
‘A binding standard’
Ten years later, legal and maritime experts say the ruling has changed how governments assess such encounters—shifting the debate from competing claims to whether China’s actions comply with international law.
Former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who helped shape the Philippines’ legal strategy in the January 2013 arbitration case Manila filed against Beijing, said the award’s most enduring legacy was establishing a broad international recognition of the country’s maritime entitlements in the West Philippine Sea.
“The most significant legacy is that the world now understands that we have our exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the West Philippine Sea, full 200 nautical miles. And they are supporting that,” Carpio told the Inquirer.
“There’s no country that agrees with China that China owns the South China Sea,” he added.
“The ruling didn’t change China’s behavior, but it changed how the world talks about that behavior,” Ray Powell, director of Stanford University’s SeaLight maritime transparency initiative, told the Inquirer.
“Most of us no longer argue over ‘competing claims.’ We measure Beijing against a clear and binding standard.”
The assessment by Carpio and Powell comes as governments have increasingly rallied behind the July 2016 ruling, even as China refuses to recognize it.
Growing int’l support
According to the Washington-based Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI), 27 countries publicly called for respect for the ruling as of January 2025. Another 17 had issued generally positive statements acknowledging the award without expressly urging compliance, while eight had publicly rejected it.
AMTI said support for the award has accelerated in recent years.
Since November 2022, 18 governments—including France, Italy, India, South Korea, Norway and 14 European countries—have shifted from merely acknowledging the award to explicitly recognizing it as legally binding.
The initiative attributed the trend in part to renewed concern over international rules following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and a more active Philippine policy in the South China Sea.
After reviewing official public statements, AMTI said it identified 31 countries that publicly supported Beijing’s position against 41 that said that the award was legally binding and called on both China and the Philippines to respect it.
Indonesia illustrates how governments have relied on the tribunal’s reasoning to apply the ruling beyond the Philippines-China dispute, AMTI said.
In a note verbale submitted to the United Nations in May 2020, Jakarta said its position on maritime entitlements had been “confirmed” by the July 2016 arbitral award.
Indonesia cited the tribunal’s findings that no feature in the Spratly Islands generates an EEZ or continental shelf and that China’s claimed historic rights under the so-called nine-dash line (now ten-dash line) lack legal basis under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).
“We’re happy that they’re invoking it because they agree that we have a full EEZ in the West Philippine Sea,” Carpio said. “In fact, they should because it benefits them also because our common enemy is China’s 10-dash line.”
2012 standoff
The arbitration case stemmed from a 2012 standoff between Filipino and Chinese vessels at Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal following an attempt by the Philippine Navy to arrest Chinese fishermen who had illegally hauled endangered giant clams, live sharks and protected corals.
The shoal, also called Bajo de Masinloc, is west of Zambales and well within the West Philippine Sea, waters within the country’s 370-kilometer EEZ.
To ease the tension, the Philippine vessels left the area in June 2012 under a US-brokered agreement with Beijing, but the Chinese ships did not. China has since controlled access to the shoal, a traditional Filipino fishing ground, with its coast guard and maritime militia vessels driving away Filipino fishermen and government patrol ships, sometimes with powerful water cannons.
The Philippines brought its case before an arbitral tribunal under Unclos in January 2013, challenging China’s claims to nearly the entire South China Sea, including the West Philippine Sea.
China refused to participate in the proceedings, arguing that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
The tribunal ruled overwhelmingly in the Philippines’ favor, finding that China’s claimed historic rights within the so-called nine-dash line had no legal basis under Unclos.
It also declared that none of the features in the Spratly Islands claimed by China generated an EEZ and that Beijing violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights by interfering with fishing, petroleum exploration and other lawful activities within the country’s EEZ.
The tribunal also concluded that China had caused severe harm to the marine environment through its island-building and fishing activities.
Asked whether repeated references by other governments to the award had elevated it into an authoritative interpretation of Unclos, Carpio said that it did “because the decision of the tribunal is an authoritative decision under Unclos.”
‘A yardstick’ for the world
For Powell, the award’s significance lies in giving governments a common legal framework for evaluating China’s conduct in the South China Sea.
“The award matters more than people realize,” he said. “The Philippines didn’t just win a ruling in 2016. It handed the world a yardstick.”
Powell said governments, including the United States, Japan, Australia, Canada, France and members of the European Union, were not merely expressing political support for Manila.
“They’re defending international law, and that distinction matters enormously.”
Every time another government cites the award, he said, Beijing’s insistence that the ruling is “null and void” becomes more isolated.
Public documentation
The SeaLight director also credited the Philippines’ policy of publicly documenting incidents in the West Philippine Sea with reinforcing the award’s impact.
He said that by documenting confrontations through videos, photographs and regular public briefings, the Philippines has provided governments with evidence that can be measured against the tribunal’s legal findings.
Without the award, Powell said, China’s expansive maritime claims might still be treated as just one that is open to negotiation rather than what an international tribunal had found to have no legal basis under Unclos.
He said the award became most effective when paired with the Philippines’ policy of documenting incidents in the West Philippine Sea.
“The arbitral victory and the transparency policy together are far more powerful than either one alone,” Powell said. “The award defines Manila’s rights. The transparency campaign shows the world how flagrantly China violates them.”
The post PH arbitral win’s legacy: World’s eyes on China appeared first on Inquirer.net.
