The Philippines and 13 other countries reaffirmed the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award on Sunday, marking the ruling's 10th anniversary and describing it as "final, legally binding, and definitive between China and the Philippines."

The joint reaffirmation, issued on 12 July's anniversary milestone, revives international attention on the award rendered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Case No. 2013-19, which the Philippines initiated under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The tribunal ruled overwhelmingly in Manila's favour, rejecting China's expansive "nine-dash line" claims to maritime entitlements in the South China Sea.

The 14 states used unambiguous language in their anniversary statement, calling the award "final, legally binding, and definitive between China and the Philippines." That phrasing tracks Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex VII, under which arbitral awards are final and compliance is required by the parties to the dispute.

China refused to participate in the 2013-2016 proceedings and has rejected the award since its issuance on 12 July 2016, maintaining that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Beijing has treated the ruling as null and void. The Philippines, under successive administrations, has treated the award as a fixed element of its legal position in the South China Sea.

What the reaffirmation signals

The statement by the Philippines and its 13 partner states carries no new legal force — the award has been binding since 2016 — but it serves a clear diplomatic and litigation-adjacent function. Collective reaffirmation by a broad group of states strengthens the argument that the award forms part of the settled international legal landscape, raising the reputational and precedential cost for any state that disregards it.

For practitioners, the anniversary statement matters in several concrete ways. First, it signals that a substantial coalition of states will continue to treat the award as authoritative when interpreting UNCLOS provisions on maritime entitlements, historic rights, and the status of maritime features. Second, it may embolden other claimant or interested states to pursue law-of-the-sea arbitration under Annex VII as a dispute-resolution model. Third, counsel advising clients on shipping, energy, and fisheries operations in the South China Sea should note that the legal baseline reflected in the award — not China's asserted historic rights — is the position a majority of engaged states now publicly endorse.

The reaffirmation also arrives amid continued friction between Chinese and Philippine vessels near contested features, where the award's findings on the legal status of those features remain central to questions of lawful access and resource exploitation.

A decade of the award

The tribunal's 2016 decision held that China's claimed historic rights to resources within the nine-dash line had no legal basis under UNCLOS, that none of the Spratly features qualify as full islands entitled to exclusive economic zones, and that certain Chinese conduct in the disputed waters — including island-building and interference with Philippine fishing activity — violated the Philippines' rights under the Convention.

Ten years on, the anniversary statement by the Philippines and 13 other nations asserts that the ruling's authority endures unchanged: final, binding, and definitive as between the two parties.