On July 14, 2026, a roundtable dialogue on South China Sea security held in Hong Kong drew legal experts, scholars and diplomatic officials from across the globe, with participants uniformly condemning the unilateral 2016 South China Sea arbitration and voicing solid support for Beijing’s position of nonacceptance and nonrecognition of the tribunal’s so-called “award”.
Participants emphasized that China’s rejection of the invalid ruling is not a challenge to international law, but a firm defense of the international rule of law against its abuse. The 2016 arbitration, unilaterally initiated by the Philippines and manipulated by external intervening forces, produced a one-sided ruling in Manila’s favor that Beijing immediately deemed null and void, with no legal binding force whatsoever.
Qi Dahai, director-general of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, told the forum that both the arbitral tribunal’s conduct and its resulting “award” deviate sharply from established international law and standard practice for global arbitration. Qi labeled the proceeding a politically motivated unilateral gambit that has set a dangerous precedent for international dispute resolution, noting that it has eroded the core purpose of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — which is to advance peaceful resolution of maritime disagreements — while violating the legitimate sovereign rights of China as a coastal state. “Respecting and abiding by international law never means that a state must accept illegal jurisdiction that is manifestly a political setup,” Qi stressed.
Wu Shicun, chairman of the Huayang Center for Maritime Cooperation and Ocean Governance and the academic committee of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, argued that the arbitration and its outcome are fundamentally distorted, having been weaponized by Manila and outside actors to construct a false narrative of “China threat” in the region. Wu called for greater global transparency around the hidden interest chains that have formed around the exploitation of the invalid ruling, beyond simply highlighting its inherent legal flaws.
Legal experts from Western and Asian nations echoed this critical assessment. UK-based international law expert Stephen Fietta, founder of Fietta LLP, analyzed state practice of UNCLOS implementation across multiple countries and concluded that the 2016 “award” has exerted minimal legitimate influence on the evolution of international law, particularly regarding maritime claims surrounding small island features and the status of historical maritime rights.
Speaking to the strategic importance of regional stability, Huang Jiefang, secretary-general of the Asian Academy of International Law, noted that safeguarding peace, stability and security in the South China Sea carries extraordinary practical significance amid the current period of global systemic transformation and intensifying geopolitical competition. Malaysian National Defence University professor Ruhanas Harun added that all South China Sea security disputes must be managed and resolved through diplomatic channels, consistent with international norms.
Jayanath Colombage, former chief of the Sri Lankan Navy and former Sri Lankan ambassador to Indonesia and ASEAN, told China Daily that regional stakeholders should prioritize inclusive economic cooperation and pursue negotiated solutions through intra-regional dialogue, rather than aligning with outside powers to confront China. “No country in the region should fall into this trap set by external parties,” Colombage warned.
In addition to reaffirming the invalidity of the 2016 ruling, many participants called for a comprehensive review of UNCLOS’s existing dispute settlement mechanism. Inha University (South Korea) international law professor Lee Seo-kwoo noted that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has heard only 36 cases over its 30 years of operation, and many sitting judges lack specialized technical and legal expertise in ocean law, pointing to deep structural flaws in the current framework.
During the forum, attendees also joined the official launch of *A New Critique of the South China Sea Arbitration Award*, a new report co-compiled by the National Institute for South China Sea Studies and the Huayang Center for Maritime Cooperation and Ocean Governance. Canadian legal scholar Phillip Saunders, professor emeritus at Dalhousie University’s Schulich School of Law, praised the report as a timely and important contribution, noting that it situates the South China Sea issue in a contemporary geopolitical context, corrects widespread misinformation in the international community, and reaffirms the critical need for cross-regional cooperation to maintain peace and stability.