Manila has taken a firm stand on the international stage, reaffirming its commitment to the 2016 arbitral ruling on the South China Sea during a critical forum in Beijing. The ruling, a landmark decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, invalidated China’s expansive claims in the disputed waters, siding with the Philippines on key maritime entitlements. At the forum, Philippine representatives underscored the legal weight of the decision, signaling an unwavering stance amid ongoing tensions with Beijing over contested reefs and islands.
This political maneuver, set against the backdrop of diplomatic dialogues, highlights Manila’s determination to uphold international law while navigating a complex relationship with China, a regional powerhouse and economic partner. As disputes in the South China Sea continue to simmer, the Philippines’ assertion at the forum marks a pivotal moment in the broader geopolitical chess game, with implications for regional stability and maritime security.
A Defiant Stand on International Law
The 2016 arbitral ruling, issued under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), was a historic victory for the Philippines. It rejected China’s so-called nine-dash line a demarcation used to claim vast swathes of the South China Sea, including areas within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The tribunal also clarified the legal status of several features in the Spratly Islands, determining that none qualified as islands capable of generating extensive maritime zones for China. 
At the Beijing forum, Philippine officials reiterated that the ruling is final and binding, a position consistent with Manila’s long-standing policy. While specific statements from the event remain under wraps due to the sensitivity of the discussions, the delegation’s focus on the arbitral award aligns with broader efforts to rally international support for a rules-based order in the region. This approach underscores a commitment to diplomacy backed by legal precedent, even as China continues to reject the tribunal’s decision and assert its presence through militarized outposts and fishing fleets.
The South China Sea remains a flashpoint, with overlapping claims from multiple nations, including Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. For the Philippines, the disputed waters are not just a matter of sovereignty but also of economic survival, as they encompass vital fishing grounds and potential energy resources. Manila’s insistence on the 2016 ruling at a forum hosted by Beijing—a rare platform for direct engagement—signals both defiance and a call for dialogue under the framework of international law.
Navigating a Delicate Balance with China
The Philippines’ relationship with China is a delicate balancing act. On one hand, Beijing is a major trading partner and source of infrastructure investment through initiatives like the Belt and Road. On the other, China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea, including the harassment of Filipino fishermen and the presence of coast guard vessels near disputed reefs, have fueled public discontent and strained bilateral ties. Manila’s decision to highlight the arbitral ruling in Beijing reflects a strategic effort to assert its rights without fully alienating a powerful neighbor.
Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the Philippines has shifted toward a more assertive foreign policy compared to the China-friendly stance of his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte. Marcos has sought stronger defense ties with the United States, including expanded access to Philippine military bases under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). This pivot has irked Beijing, which views such moves as provocative and aligned with Washington’s efforts to counter Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific.
Yet, Manila remains cautious. Economic interdependence with China necessitates a pragmatic approach, even as public sentiment often leans toward demanding a tougher stance. The Beijing forum provided a platform to test this balance—raising the arbitral ruling as a non-negotiable point while engaging in discussions that could pave the way for de-escalation or joint resource exploration agreements, though no concrete outcomes have been publicly confirmed.
Regional and Global Implications
The South China Sea dispute extends far beyond bilateral tensions between Manila and Beijing. It is a critical test of international maritime law and the ability of smaller nations to stand up to larger powers. The Philippines’ reiteration of the 2016 ruling at the forum sends a message to other claimants in the region, potentially emboldening them to pursue legal or diplomatic avenues to protect their own interests. Vietnam, for instance, has faced similar challenges with Chinese vessels in its EEZ and has previously expressed support for UNCLOS-based resolutions.
Globally, the dispute is a focal point for major powers. The United States, while not a claimant, conducts regular freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea to challenge China’s claims and ensure open access to one of the world’s busiest trade routes. An estimated $3.4 trillion in trade passes through these waters annually, making stability a priority for economies worldwide. Washington has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to supporting allies like the Philippines, with the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty potentially obligating U.S. intervention in the event of an armed attack on Filipino forces in the disputed area.
Meanwhile, China’s rejection of the arbitral ruling and its continued buildup of artificial islands equipped with military infrastructure have raised alarms about potential escalation. Analysts warn that a miscalculation—such as a clash between naval or fishing vessels—could spiral into a broader conflict, drawing in external powers. The Philippines’ diplomatic push at the Beijing forum, therefore, serves as both a reminder of legal norms and a subtle plea for restraint amid rising stakes.
Domestic Pressures and Public Sentiment
Back home, Manila’s stance at the forum is likely to resonate with a domestic audience frustrated by years of perceived inaction on the South China Sea issue. Filipino fishermen, particularly those operating near Scarborough Shoal and other disputed features, have long complained of harassment by Chinese vessels, often losing access to traditional fishing grounds. These incidents have become a symbol of national pride and sovereignty, with many Filipinos viewing the 2016 ruling as a hard-won victory that must be defended at all costs.
Political pressure on Marcos to take a firm line is mounting, especially as opposition figures and nationalist groups criticize any perceived softness toward China. At the same time, the government must weigh the economic fallout of a more confrontational approach. Chinese tourists, investments, and trade are significant contributors to the Philippine economy, and a diplomatic rupture could have tangible consequences for jobs and growth. The forum’s discussions, while focused on high-level policy, indirectly reflect these domestic undercurrents, as Manila seeks a path that satisfies both national honor and practical needs.
The Road Ahead: Legal Persistence or Compromise?
As the dust settles on the Beijing forum, the Philippines’ reaffirmation of the 2016 arbitral ruling stands as a marker of its resolve. Yet, the path forward remains uncertain. China shows no sign of accepting the tribunal’s decision, and its physical control over key features in the South China Sea gives it a de facto advantage. Manila, lacking the military might to enforce its claims directly, must rely on diplomatic coalitions, legal arguments, and alliances to press its case.
One potential avenue is the ongoing negotiation for a Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which the Philippines is a member. While progress has been slow, a binding COC could provide a framework for managing disputes and preventing escalation. However, skepticism abounds about whether such an agreement would respect the arbitral ruling or merely codify China’s dominant position.
Another factor is the role of international partners. The Philippines has deepened security cooperation with not only the United States but also Japan, Australia, and the European Union, all of whom have a stake in maintaining a rules-based maritime order. These partnerships could amplify Manila’s voice, though they risk further antagonizing Beijing and complicating regional dynamics.
For now, the Philippines’ bold stance at the Beijing forum underscores a broader question: can legal victories translate into tangible gains in the face of geopolitical realities? As tensions persist in the South China Sea, Manila’s commitment to the 2016 ruling will likely remain a cornerstone of its foreign policy, even as it navigates the choppy waters of diplomacy and power politics.
