Whenever critics point to the South China Sea, they almost always echo the same weary refrain: international law is toothless. They point at China’s refusal to follow the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling, throw up their hands, and declare global treaties useless when power politics enters the room.
That conclusion is completely backward. In similar updates, take a look at: Why Andy Burnham Kept Kanishka Narayan And Lisa Nandy In His New Cabinet.
When a driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian, nobody claims the traffic code failed. We blame the driver. International maritime law works the exact same way. Speaking at a roundtable hosted by the Ananta Centre in New Delhi, Philippine Ambassador to India Josel F. Ignacio cut straight to the core of this misconception. When states refuse to honor international rulings, it doesn't expose the flaws of legal frameworks. It exposes the lawbreakers.
Understanding why this legal distinction matters isn't just an academic exercise. It dictates how smaller nations defend their offshore borders, how trade flows across global waters, and why major regional powers like India are stepping directly into maritime security partnerships. The Guardian has analyzed this critical subject in extensive detail.
Non-Compliance Reveals Lawbreakers, Not Systemic Legal Failures
The debate surrounding the South China Sea arbitration ruling often stalls on enforcement. Critics argue that because there is no international police force to march into disputed waters and drag non-compliant forces away, treaties like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) don't carry real weight.
That line of thinking misses how global order actually functions.
Ambassador Ignacio pointed to the centuries-old legal pillar pacta sunt servanda—the straightforward principle that agreements must be honored. When a nation signs and ratifies UNCLOS, it agrees to abide by dispute settlement mechanisms. The 2016 ruling delivered in The Hague was unanimous, final, and legally binding on both the Philippines and China. China's choice to ignore the outcome doesn't wipe away the legal decision. Instead, it puts China's willingness to behave as a responsible global actor under a harsh spotlight.
"Those non-compliant states expose less the limitation of international law, but expose more the extent to which some states are willing to be responsible actors despite their pronouncements." — Josel F. Ignacio, Philippine Ambassador to India
The court did something permanent. It established clear definitions for maritime geography under UNCLOS. It clarified what counts as an island, what counts as a rock, and what counts as a low-tide elevation. That factual clarity stripped away the legal ambiguity that aggressive nations rely on to seize maritime territory.
How the Arbitral Award Shrinks the Map of Disputed Waters
A common myth is that the South China Sea dispute is an endlessly complex, hopelessly tangled mess where nobody knows who owns what.
The 2016 ruling cleared up most of that confusion.
By defining the legal status of geographic features in the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal, the tribunal systematically dismantled expansive "historic rights" claims like China's nine-dash line. Under UNCLOS, historic claims cannot override the specific maritime zones granted to coastal states.
Here is how the ruling narrowed down what is actually left to resolve:
- Low-Tide Elevations generate zero rights: Features submerged at high tide cannot generate a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), or continental shelf. They belong to the continental shelf of the coastal nation in whose EEZ they lie.
- No naturally occurring feature in the Spratlys generates a 200-nautical-mile EEZ: The tribunal determined that none of the features in the Spratly group are capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of their own. They are legally "rocks," generating at most a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea.
- The broad economic zones are settled: Since no feature generates an EEZ, the surrounding waters fall inside the standard 200-nautical-mile EEZs of coastal states like the Philippines.
Because the tribunal settled maritime entitlements, the actual contested space shrank dramatically. The world is no longer arguing over thousands of square miles of open sea or sovereign rights over fish and natural gas. The court ruled those rights belong to the coastal states.
What remains isn't a maritime entitlement debate. The only remaining issue is sovereignty over a handful of high-tide rocks. That distinction matters because it gives victim nations a rock-solid legal ground to stand on when patrolling their EEZs.
Why India is Quietly Becoming a Central Player in Manila's Defense Strategy
For years, Southeast Asian nations looked almost exclusively to Washington for security guarantees. That dynamic is shifting.
The Manila-New Delhi relationship has transformed from polite diplomatic talk into serious defense cooperation. India and the Philippines share identical stakes in keeping the Indo-Pacific open and governed by clear maritime rules.
When India delivered its shore-based BrahMos supersonic cruise missile batteries to the Philippines, it wasn't just completing a business transaction. It fundamentally altered the military math in the West Philippine Sea.
[ Philippines Coastline ]
│
▼ (Equipped with BrahMos Supersonic Missiles)
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Anti-Access / Area-Denial Zone (290 km Range) │
│ - Forces hostile naval vessels to stay far offshore │
│ - Significantly raises the cost of aggressive actions │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
The BrahMos deal grants Manila a credible anti-access and area-denial capability. A country doesn't need a massive navy to protect its coast if it can hit surface ships with supersonic precision from hundreds of kilometers away. It forces any potential aggressor to recalculate the financial and operational cost of coercive actions.
Military hardware is only half the picture. The Indian Navy has expanded its physical presence in the South China Sea, conducting joint naval maneuvers with the Philippine Navy. India isn't making territorial claims in these waters. By sailing warships through international shipping lanes, India sends an unmistakable message: freedom of navigation granted by UNCLOS is non-negotiable.
Beyond defense equipment, New Delhi is stepping up across broader economic and diplomatic initiatives. Manila supports India's role in regional security groupings like the Quad and has signaled strong support for India's campaign for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
The Dangerous Fallacy of "Might Makes Right" at Sea
Allowing powerful nations to ignore arbitral rulings sets a dangerous precedent for every maritime nation.
If coercion replaces treaty law in the South China Sea, smaller nations around the globe lose protection overnight. Maritime boundaries in the Gulf of Aden, the Baltic Sea, or the Persian Gulf would depend entirely on who brings the bigger fleet of coast guard cutters and naval vessels.
Law enforcement in international waters isn't built on armies marching across borders. It relies on reputation, diplomatic isolation, and collective deterrence. When a major state ignores legal rulings, it pays a steep long-term price. It pushes neighboring states into coalition building, drives up defense spending, and unites regional middle powers—exactly as China's assertiveness pushed the Philippines, India, Japan, and Australia closer together.
Nations don't abide by UNCLOS because it's a pleasant ideal. They abide by it because without it, international shipping lines—the lifeblood of global trade—become unstable combat zones.
Practical Actions for States Facing Maritime Aggression
Dealing with a non-compliant power requires a clear strategy. Relying purely on legal statements isn't enough, but abandoning the law is fatal. Middle powers and coastal nations can protect their sovereignty through three concrete measures:
- Anchor every diplomatic stance directly in arbitral precedence: Never treat settled legal questions as open debates. Refer to low-tide features and EEZ boundaries as established legal facts.
- Build asymmetric deterrence networks: Pair legal standing with real defensive hardware. Coastal missile systems like BrahMos, combined with maritime domain awareness technology, allow smaller nations to defend their EEZs effectively.
- Conduct joint patrols with non-claimant partners: Bringing third-party nations like India into joint naval maneuvers establishes that maritime freedom is a global concern, not a localized border spat.
International law doesn't enforce itself—it gives responsible states the moral and legal standing to enforce rights together. The 2016 ruling remains active, valid, and legally binding. The task now is making the cost of ignoring it far higher than the cost of compliance.
