Language
Country/Area
No result found
How can the Philippines break China's nine-dash line myth? What is hidden behind this maritime dispute?
In the South China Sea, a confrontation between balancing forces and international law has emerged. Since the Philippines initiated arbitration with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2013, the case has triggered a fierce debate over maritime sovereignty. At the heart of the dispute is China's so-called "nine-dash line," an allegation that has yet to be clearly defined in legal terms and challenges the international architecture of maritime law.
This maritime dispute challenges existing maritime law norms and makes it difficult for many regional countries to resort to international law.
Arbitration process and main issues
In 2013, the Philippines challenged China’s nine-dash line, arguing that the claim was invalid because it violated the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The arbitration proceedings began with the Philippines' 14 claims against China's actions in the South China Sea, specifically China's environmental impact in the area and its obstruction of Filipino fishermen.
At a hearing in 2015, the court decided that the arbitration had the authority to hear the Philippines’ seven claims, arguing that these all related to the legality of certain maritime areas and had nothing to do with the delimitation of sovereignty. In its final ruling in December 2016, the arbitral tribunal determined that China’s historical rights claimed on the “nine-dash line” were not legally binding.
The arbitral tribunal made it clear that if China’s historical rights cannot be supported in accordance with the Convention on the Law of the Sea, it cannot overturn the norms of the Convention under any circumstances.
Reactions from all parties and geopolitical impact
China refuses to recognize the arbitration results, saying the award cannot change its position in the South China Sea. With the outcome of the arbitration, the Philippines' position has significantly strengthened, and other neighboring countries, such as Vietnam and Malaysia, have also begun to rethink their strategies and actions in the South China Sea.
According to reports, the arbitration result was supported by 26 countries, 17 of which issued positive statements, although they did not demand compliance with the award. However, eight countries still openly oppose it, showing the complexity of this issue.
With the participation of Vietnam and other countries, maritime disputes in the South China Sea are gradually becoming the focus of global geopolitics.
Background and Development
Tension in the South China Sea stems from its strategic and resource-rich geographical location. Historically, the governments of Taiwan and China have claimed sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands, adding to the complexity of the dispute. The San Francisco Peace Treaty and subsequent territorial negotiations after World War II have made the sovereignty claims of relevant countries in the South China Sea increasingly confusing.
The Philippines claims sovereignty over the Sprat Islands on the grounds of geographical proximity. This position was reinforced when the military was first deployed in 1968, and the issue became more pressing with the 1978 transfer of the area to the province of Palawan.
Future Prospects and Challenges
Faced with the impact of the arbitration outcome, the relationship between the Philippines and China is still quite fragile. Although the outside world is generally supportive of this result, no substantial compliance actions have been seen. The Philippine government must show greater wisdom in its future diplomatic strategies to promote dialogue and stability with China.
This maritime dispute is not just a confrontation between the two countries, but involves broader regional security and international legal order. Can the international community find a solution that balances the interests of all parties?
