DFA reaffirms 2016 arbitral award is ‘final and binding’; Beijing reaffirms it ‘disagrees’; ocean has no comment

MANILA, Philippines

The Department of Foreign Affairs issued a statement Monday strongly rejecting the Chinese Embassy’s recent challenge to the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award, reiterating that the ruling is “final, binding, and an integral part of international law” — a position the Philippines has maintained consistently for a decade and which China has rejected consistently for the same decade, producing what diplomatic analysts describe as “a remarkably stable disagreement.”

“It is not and will never be illegal, null and void,” the DFA said of the award, deploying a double negative that manages to be both grammatically awkward and legally unambiguous. “The award is final and binding and has become an unassailable part of the corpus of international law.”

The Chinese Embassy did not immediately respond to the DFA’s statement, as it was busy issuing its own statement, which the DFA will respond to next week, which will prompt a Chinese Embassy response the following week, a cycle that has been running since approximately July 2016 and shows no signs of completing.

The Award: A Decade-Old Document That Everyone References and Nobody Follows

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued its ruling in July 2016 after three years of proceedings initiated by the Philippines under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The tribunal found in favor of the Philippines on nearly all counts, invalidating China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claims and affirming Philippine maritime rights in the West Philippine Sea.

China, which boycotted the proceedings and has described the tribunal as “illegal” since before it issued its ruling, has maintained this position with a consistency that legal scholars describe as “impressive, if non-compliant.”

The DFA noted that the arbitral tribunal had already dismissed China’s jurisdictional objections in its 2015 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, meaning the argument China is currently making was already made, heard, considered, and rejected before the main award was even issued. The DFA noted this with the patient tone of an institution that has explained this many times and will explain it many more times.

International Law: What It Is and What It Does

Dr. Fernando Cruz, Professor of International Maritime Law at the fictional Philippine Institute of Ocean Jurisprudence, explained that international law operates on the principle that states agree to be bound by treaties and the decisions of tribunals they have accepted jurisdiction over. This system works well when states comply, works moderately when states partially comply, and works theoretically when states publicly reject the entire framework while remaining signatories to the treaty that created it.

“China is a state party to UNCLOS,” Dr. Cruz noted. “China benefits from UNCLOS in international shipping, fishing, and resource claims in other maritime zones. China simply disagrees with the specific application of UNCLOS that resulted in the 2016 award. This is what lawyers call ‘selective compliance’ and what everyone else calls ‘having it both ways.’”

The Permanent Court of Arbitration has not issued further comment on the award’s implementation status, as it issued its decision, received the result, and considers the matter legally concluded. The geopolitics are someone else’s department.

The 10th Anniversary Approaches: Plans for a Celebration Nobody Is Sure How to Frame

As the Philippines prepares to mark the award’s 10th anniversary in July, the DFA noted that the ruling “continues to resonate strongly within the evolving corpus of international law governing the oceans.” Officials are planning commemorative events, including symposia, academic conferences, and a formal reaffirmation ceremony that diplomatic insiders describe as “essentially a press release with a podium.”

“We will mark this anniversary as an affirmation of the rules-based international order,” said one DFA official, who asked not to be identified because they were about to say something honest. “The challenge is that the anniversary celebrates a legal victory that has not produced physical changes in the situation on the water. We won in court. They’re still on the reefs. The two facts coexist uncomfortably.”

The official confirmed that this uncomfortable coexistence is “still better than not having the ruling,” which is the position the DFA has settled on after ten years of living with both the victory and the circumstances that preceded it.

The Philippines’ Position: Dialogue, Diplomacy, and the Option to Repeat Everything

The DFA reaffirmed its commitment to “dialogue and diplomacy” while stressing that the Philippines “is not precluded from availing itself of dispute-settlement mechanisms under UNCLOS when disputes cannot be resolved through consultations.” This sentence, which has appeared in DFA statements with minor variations since 2016, essentially means: we prefer talking, but we will go back to court if necessary, and we have already gone to court once and the result is on the record.

The United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea confirmed that the 2016 award remains part of the legal record. The West Philippine Sea remains part of the geographic record. Both records are available for review. The situation on the water, as of press time, continues to evolve independently of either record.

What Happens Next

Philippine and Chinese diplomatic teams will continue what both sides describe as “consultations” and what independent observers describe as “two parties asserting incompatible positions with great formality at regular intervals.” The DFA will issue further statements. The Chinese Embassy will issue responses. The ocean will remain where it is, containing the reefs in question, watched by Philippine coast guard vessels and Chinese maritime militia ships, all of whom are presumably aware of the arbitral award and none of whom are its intended enforcement mechanism.

“The award has been cited in several international decisions and judgments,” the DFA noted, correctly. “Its influence on the development of international law is clear.” Its influence on the situation at Scarborough Shoal was not mentioned. Some topics are handled with tactful omission, which is itself a diplomatic art form.

More at The Daily Mash | The Onion

SOURCE: https://bohiney.com