When China denounced a recent joint statement by 14 countries reaffirming the recent South China Sea arbitral award as a piece of “waste paper,” the dispute appeared straightforward.
Beijing rejected the ruling, while others described it as legally binding. The implication was that one side must be right and the other wrong. That framing is misleading.
The South China Sea is not a single legal question but a cluster of distinct issues that are often conflated in public debate. The first concerns sovereignty over islands, a matter no international tribunal has resolved.
The second involves the legal classification of maritime features under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — whether they qualify as islands, rocks or low-tide elevations. The third addresses the maritime entitlements those features generate, which depend on their classification rather than ownership.
Separating these questions clarifies why many apparently contradictory arguments are not, in fact, addressing the same issue.
Yet public discourse, particularly on social media, rewards certainty over precision. Simplified claims travel faster than legal nuance, encouraging audiences to adopt positions without understanding the underlying disputes.
State narratives
This dynamic extends beyond the South China Sea, shaping debates on cross-strait relations, trade and climate policy. Complex issues are routinely reduced to binary contests between right and wrong.
That gap is reinforced by state narratives. An editorial in China’s Global Times dismissing the joint statement and reiterating that the UNCLOS ruling is “a piece of waste paper” illustrates how complexity is replaced with slogans. Stripped of its rhetoric, the argument rests on three core claims.
First, the editorial characterizes the arbitration as illegitimate because UNCLOS does not cover territorial sovereignty. The tribunal acknowledged this limitation and did not attempt to determine ownership.
Instead, it addressed maritime entitlements, concluding that no feature in the Spratly Islands qualifies as a full island capable of generating a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone. The ruling clarified legal boundaries without adjudicating sovereignty.
Second, the composition of the tribunal is portrayed as biased. This overlooks procedural realities.
Maritime law manipulation
China’s decision to boycott the proceedings forfeited its right to appoint arbitrators under UNCLOS Annex VII. The remaining appointments followed standard treaty mechanisms. The tribunal’s composition was a consequence of those rules, not evidence of manipulation.
Third, the editorial argues the ruling lacks relevance because other signatories are not direct claimants and ASEAN has not issued a unified endorsement. This misrepresents the nature of maritime law.
The arbitration clarified provisions of a global treaty governing shared seas. States beyond the region have a direct interest in upholding those rules, which underpin international trade and navigation. ASEAN’s caution reflects political and economic constraints, not legal rejection.
Dismissing a binding ruling as irrelevant carries broader consequences. If major powers can disregard treaty obligations when outcomes prove inconvenient, the credibility of international law erodes. Legal frameworks risk becoming instruments of convenience rather than constraints on power.
For meaningful progress in the South China Sea, the ruling cannot be treated as optional. It provides a common legal framework for managing competing claims and clarifies the scope of maritime rights. Without such a baseline, negotiations risk devolving into assertions of power rather than applications of law.
The Global Times claims that today's China "does not believe in fallacy." Yet the greatest fallacy of all is believing that a lasting regional peace can be built by shredding the very rules that keep the global order intact.
For democracies navigating these turbulent waters, the path forward requires us to reject the simple comfort of nationalist slogans, look past the hot air of state editorials, and hold fast to the discipline of international law.
John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong who lives in Taiwan and is the author of “Taiwan Is Taiwan.”
