On 12 July 2026, the tenth anniversary of the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling on the South China Sea, a coalition of 14 nations issued a joint statement declaring that China’s expansive maritime claims “have no legal basis” under international law. The European Union released a separate endorsement, calling the 2016 decision a “landmark decision in the peaceful settlement of disputes.” Beijing immediately rejected the statements, summoned the deputy chief of mission at the Japanese embassy, and described the original award as “a piece of waste paper that is illegal, null and void.”

The signatories—including the United States, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, Canada, and several European and Baltic states—described the tribunal’s ruling as “a significant milestone” that is “final, legally binding, and definitive” between China and the Philippines. Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi stated that China’s refusal to accept the ruling “undermines the rule of law in the international community.” In response, China’s foreign ministry accused the countries of “stirring up trouble” and insisted that territorial sovereignty issues fall outside the jurisdiction of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. A ministry spokesperson also alleged that the United States and its allies were engaged in “militarisation and coercion” in the region. Taiwan’s foreign ministry separately reaffirmed its “Four Principles” on the South China Sea, pledging to uphold international law and freedom of navigation.

The diplomatic clash unfolded against a backdrop of heightened tensions. In Manila, officials and analysts say the Philippines has spent the past decade strengthening its deterrence posture, making China “at least hesitate” in what they describe as a “creeping invasion” of Philippine waters. A recent academic symposium in Guangzhou further unsettled the Philippines by claiming that the Batanes islands, located north of Luzon, “constitute a natural geographical extension of Taiwan” and therefore belong to China. Beijing has not formally adopted the scholars’ position, but the discussion has fuelled concern in Manila that an academic argument could be used to shape a wider narrative. Separately, China defended its inspections of Panama-flagged vessels as routine safety checks, rejecting accusations from Washington and Panama City that it is weaponising shipping lines for geopolitical leverage.

The 2016 arbitration was initiated by the Philippines under UNCLOS and concluded that China’s nine-dash line claim had no legal basis and that China had violated Manila’s sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone. China has never participated in the proceedings and has since built and militarised artificial islands on reefs also claimed by the Philippines. The 14-nation statement urged all parties to resolve disputes peacefully and opposed the use of military, coast guard, or maritime militia forces to intimidate other states. The EU’s separate statement reinforced the call for adherence to the rules-based order. No new negotiations have been announced, and China’s position remains unchanged. The dossier is expected to remain a source of periodic diplomatic friction, with the Philippines continuing to cite the ruling as a legal foundation for its claims and China insisting the award is void.