Nine Years after the South China Sea Arbitration: Conflict Continues and Realistic Challenges

The South China Sea, a strategically vital and resource-rich maritime region in Southeast Asia, is subject to overlapping territorial claims by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. On 12 July 2016, the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal ruled on the South China Sea arbitration case brought by the Philippines, challenging China’s “Nine-Dash Line” claim. Nine years later, regional tensions continue to escalate, with recent incidents such as the collision between Chinese coast guard and navy vessels in 2025 drawing fresh international attention. These developments further emphasize the complexity of the issues and the unlikelihood of a near-term peaceful resolution.

BACKGROUND AND KEY FINDINGS OF THE ARBITRATION

The 2016 South China Sea tribunal awards concluded that China’s claims lacked legal foundation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), determining that many of the contested features were rocks or low-tide elevations which are incapable of generating exclusive economic zones and that China’s land reclamation and fishing operations infringed upon the Philippines’ sovereign rights. Despite the award's clarity, China rejected it as “illegal and null,” continuing to assert control over disputed areas through military and coast guard deployments. With no enforcement mechanism, the tribunal’s decision remains declarative, and tensions persist as claimant states maintain competing patrols and law enforcement activities across the region.

China maintains de facto control over many reefs and islands, bolstering military and coast guard presence. At the same time, other claimant states, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, also conduct land reclamation as well as patrols and law enforcement operations. These conflicting actions keep a high level of tension in the region.

EVOLVING POSITIONS AND STRATEGIC COMPETITION

China insists on the illegitimacy of the arbitration and has maintained firm sovereignty claims, substantially increasing its coast guard and naval presence. Such an approach bolsters nationalist sentiment domestically, while China advocates for regional cooperation externally, such as negotiating a Code of Conduct for the South China Sea (CoC) with ASEAN to reduce external interference, that is, the pressure from Western powers. Chinese official sources accuse Western countries of manipulating the South China Sea issue for geopolitical gain, stressing peace and anti-intervention rhetoric.

The Philippines upholds the tribunal award as an international legal cornerstone and has strengthened military and diplomatic ties with its allies, such as the U.S., Japan, and Australia. Philippine officials have repeatedly stressed that while the arbitration did not eliminate the territorial dispute, it has enhanced their international standing and support.

Other claimant states like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia have similarly bolstered patrol and legal claims. The U.S. initiates its involvement in terms of defending freedom of navigation and a rules-based international order. The U.S. frequently conducts so-called “Freedom of Navigation Operations” (FONOPs) naval patrols and joint exercises with allies, directly challenging China’s maritime claims. Western powers regard the South China Sea as a key strategic front to balance China’s rise, increasing diplomatic and military pressures on Beijing through such maritime operations.

PERSISTENT DISPUTES AND CHALLENGES OVER NINE YEARS

The land reclamation might be one of the most serious developments of the South China Sea disputes. China continues island-building and military installations on reefs such as Fiery Cross, Subi, and Mischief Reefs, alongside sustained coast guard deployments. Also, it is easy to observe that Vietnam has also engaged in substantial land reclamation across several features it occupies in the Spratly Islands, notably transforming Barque Canada Reef—once one of its smallest outposts—into its largest, with over 400 acres of new land added since 2023. Additional expansions have occurred at Pearson Reef, Namyit Island, Sand Cay, and Tennent Reef, where Vietnam has employed cutter suction dredgers to accelerate dredging and landfill operations. Meanwhile, other claimant states conduct patrols and enforcement operations, occasionally leading to confrontations involving water cannon use, ramming, and laser harassment, sometimes resulting in injuries. These actions underscore the persistent volatility and unresolved nature of the maritime disputes.

Moreover, the South China Sea has become a significant arena for great-power competition. The U.S. accuses China of unilateral changes to the status quo and has increased FONOPs, military deployments, and exercise activities to exert pressure. In addition, Western media and think tanks frequently highlight China’s disregard for international norms in the region, while China condemns “hegemony and intervention” and stresses anti-bullying and regional dialogue. This has transformed the region into a multi-dimensional contest of law, military might, and diplomacy.

THE 2025 CHINESE COAST GUARD-VESSEL COLLISION: EVENT AND IN-DEPTH Analysis

On 11 August 2025, the Philippine coast guard vessel BRP Suluan was conducting routine resupply operations for fishermen near Huangyan Island (Scarborough Shoal) when it was pursued and interdicted by China’s Coast Guard vessel 3104 and the PLA Navy destroyer "Guilin." During the tense encounter, Chinese forces attempted to use water cannons and maneuvers to force the Filipino vessel away. However, probably due to poor coordination and command errors among Chinese units, the coast guard vessel accidentally collided with the PLAN destroyer, causing significant damage and several minor injuries to crew members. Filipino crew and accompanying press documented the incident with video footage, which was widely disseminated internationally.

Following the incident, China suppressed domestic reports on the collision and blamed the Philippines for “intruding into Chinese waters,” warning the U.S., Japan, and Australia against interference. The Philippines publicly rewarded its personnel involved and reaffirmed its commitment to defending national sovereignty against what it described as Chinese harassment. Western governments and media quickly criticized China’s aggressive conduct and poor operational control, highlighting the risks of escalation. The U.S. responded by deploying additional naval assets to the area, signaling support for the Philippines and adding to Chinese pressure. Philippine allies such as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand voiced solidarity with Manila.

While other states’ navies, such as the U.S. Navy, have experienced collision incidents before, this incident exposed significant deficiencies in maritime coordination between the Chinese Coast Guard and Navy, raising questions about China's operational capabilities and command structure amidst its rapid military expansion. The event damaged China’s image and showed vulnerabilities that could escalate tensions unwittingly. It also heightened regional and global awareness of the risks posed by high-tension encounters in contested waters. It underscored urgent calls for more explicit rules of engagement and crisis management mechanisms.

THEATER FOR INTENSIFYING GREAT POWER RIVALRY

The South China Sea conflict has evolved into a complex interplay of sovereignty claims, economic interests, nationalism, and global strategic competition. While the arbitration award provided normative clarity, the on-the-ground reality remains fundamentally disputed. China and Western powers maintain mutually antagonistic stances, with regional countries balancing precariously amid intensifying pressures.

Western countries, led by the U.S., Japan, and Australia, view the South China Sea as a lever to contain China’s regional influence through military presence, alliances, and economic diplomacy. This involvement exacerbates Beijing’s perceived encirclement and feeds nationalist stress for stricter law enforcement. Given the deep entanglements of interests and fragile trust, the prospect for near-term peaceful resolution is bleak. Western pressure tactics could provoke a more assertive Chinese stance, setting the stage for a protracted confrontation akin to a strategic game of Go, with both sides attempting to gain incremental advantage through various means, thereby exacerbating instability. Some analysts even believe that such a hostile spiral will further increase the potential for escalating conflict in the South China Sea.

FUTURE OUTLOOK AND THE CODE OF CONDUCT DILEMMA

Negotiations over a CoC have proceeded for years, aiming to regulate behavior and reduce risks, but remain gridlocked by divergent interests. China seeks to lead the process regionally to limit external influence, while ASEAN claimant states prefer international legal frameworks and external oversight. Western powers worry the CoC could enable China to legitimize its control and curtail freedom of navigation. This impasse leaves the CoC lacking enforceability and substantive measures.

Meanwhile, frequent clashes and increased external military presence elevate risks of miscalculation or accidental conflict. The South China Sea represents a test for regional governance and the adaptability of a multipolar international order. The future peace and cooperation of the region will depend on diplomatic ingenuity, mutual confidence-building, and effective conflict management addressing both sovereignty sensitivities and great power rivalry.

CONCLUSION

Nine years after the 2016 arbitral ruling, the South China Sea remains a contested arena where law, power, and strategy collide. The award invalidated China’s expansive “Nine-Dash Line,” yet without enforcement mechanisms, its impact has been limited to shaping legal discourse rather than altering realities at sea. China has rejected the ruling outright, reinforcing its claims through militarization and coast guard patrols, while other claimant states and external powers have responded with their own legal assertions, patrols, and diplomatic alignments.

The August 2025 collision between a Chinese coast guard vessel and a PLA Navy destroyer illustrates how volatile the region has become. Such incidents expose both the risks of miscalculation and the inadequacy of crisis management mechanisms. They also reveal how easily bilateral tensions can escalate into broader geopolitical confrontations, given the involvement of the U.S., Japan, and Australia, which frame the South China Sea as central to maintaining a rules-based international order.

A short-term peaceful resolution appears improbable, as the disputes extend beyond sovereignty and resources to encompass the balance of power in Asia. Western powers leverage the disputes to constrain China’s regional ambitions, while Beijing insists on sovereignty and regional solutions, dismissing external involvement. This entrenched cycle deepens mistrust and perpetuates confrontation.

Stability, however, is not entirely unreachable. Progress depends on sincere multilateral cooperation, effective crisis-management tools to prevent accidental escalation, and continued reference to international law, especially UNCLOS. While immediate settlement is unlikely, adherence to these principles can gradually reduce risks and create space for dialogue. Without such efforts, the South China Sea risks solidifying into a prolonged geopolitical battleground, threatening both regional stability and the integrity of the international maritime order.