Ten years after the arbitral award in the South China Sea dispute, the ruling remains the centerpiece of the Philippines' maritime strategy, Inquirer.net reports.

The award, issued on 12 July 2016 by an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the the Sea (UNCLOS), sided with Manila in its case against China. The tribunal found that China's "nine-dash line" claim had no legal basis under the Convention and that certain features in the South China Sea, including those occupied by China, are not islands capable of generating exclusive economic zones.

The report comes as the Philippines marks a decade since the ruling, with the award continuing to serve as the legal foundation for Manila's positions in the contested waters.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines on the merits of the case brought under UNCLOS. The operative holding rejected expansive historic-rights claims in the South China Sea as incompatible with the Convention's framework of maritime zones.

China declined to participate in the proceedings and has refused to accept the award, stating that it considers the ruling null and void and without binding force. The Philippines, by contrast, has treated the decision as final and legally binding.

Why the award still matters to Manila

According to the Inquirer.net report, the award remains central to Philippine maritime strategy a decade after its issuance. Successive administrations in Manila have invoked the ruling as the legal anchor for the country's claims and conduct in the South China Sea.

The anniversary falls amid continuing tensions in the contested waters, where Philippine and Chinese vessels have repeatedly confronted one another around features within the Philippines' claimed exclusive economic zone.

Practical consequences for practitioners

For legal advisers, the staying power of the award illustrates how an Annex VII tribunal decision can shape state practice long after delivery, even where the responding state rejects the ruling. Practitioners handling law-of-the-sea matters should treat the award as settled reference points on maritime entitlements, the legal status of maritime features, and the limits of historic-rights claims under UNCLOS. The case also demonstrates that enforcement depends heavily on diplomacy, coalition-building, and persistent invocation by the awarding state rather than any compulsion mechanism, since Annex VII awards are binding but lack a direct enforcement apparatus.

A strategy built on legal victory

The report underscores that Manila has not abandoned the award despite the absence of compliance by Beijing. Instead, the Philippines continues to place the ruling at the core of its approach to the dispute, coupling legal position with operational presence in the waters the award addresses.

A decade on, the tribunal's decision functions less as a contested judgment awaiting enforcement and more as a permanent fixture of Philippine maritime policy — the reference point from which the country frames its rights, protests, and engagements in the South China Sea.

For observers of international dispute resolution, the Philippine experience offers a case study in the long afterlife of an arbitral award: a ruling that its adversary disavows, but that the prevailing state keeps at the center of its strategy, year after year.