A decade after South China Sea arbitral award, disputes persist as Taiwan’s interests erode, experts say

A decade after the 2016 South China Sea arbitral award, maritime disputes persist and gray-zone confrontations have intensified, while Taiwan’s legal position and interests have weakened, Taiwanese experts say.

The joint statement

On July 11, the US, Japan, the Philippines, and 11 other countries issued a joint statement marking the 10th anniversary of the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal Award, reaffirming that the ruling is legally binding. 

The statement said there was no legal basis for China’s expansive maritime claims, including those based on “historic rights,” and emphasized the importance of safeguarding freedom of navigation and overflight, as well as ensuring lawful uses of the sea in accordance with international law.

The 2016 award

The 2016 arbitration ruling also affected the interests of Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China (ROC). 

The ROC claims sovereignty over islands in the South China Sea and exercises effective control over Itu Aba (Taiping Island), the largest naturally formed feature in the Spratly Islands. 

However, the tribunal ruled that none of the maritime features in the Spratly Islands, including Itu Aba, qualify as full islands under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and that they are therefore not entitled to a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Following the release of the award in 2016, Beijing declared that it neither accepted nor recognized the ruling.

Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) likewise stated that the ROC had not been invited to participate in the arbitration proceedings and therefore the award was not legally binding on the ROC. 

The ministry also reaffirmed that the ROC's rights over the South China Sea islands and their adjacent waters under international law and the law of the sea were beyond dispute.

Taiwan reiterates its position

Responding to the 14-country statement, MOFA said on July 12 that the ROC’s South China Sea policy remained unchanged.

The ministry called for disputes to be resolved peacefully in accordance with international law and urged Taiwan's inclusion in multilateral dispute settlement mechanisms.

The ministry also reaffirmed its support for safeguarding freedom of navigation and overflight while promoting joint development through equal negotiations to preserve regional peace and stability.

China's response to the joint statement

On July 12, Beijing rejected the 14-country statement marking the award’s 10th anniversary and reiterated that China has "indisputable sovereignty" over the South China Sea islands and their adjacent waters.

Beijing called the award "illegal, null and void," reaffirmed its sovereignty claims and asserted historic rights in the South China Sea. It accused outside powers of destabilizing the region, and argued that disputes should be settled through direct negotiations rather than international arbitration.

Also on July 12, Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi issued a statement reaffirming Japan's support for the arbitral award and stating that there was no legal basis for China's expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea.

Motegi's remarks drew a strong protest from Beijing. 

On July 13, China's Foreign Ministry accused Japan of interfering in a dispute to which it was not a party and using the arbitration ruling to undermine China's sovereignty and maritime rights.

Gray-zone competition

Wang Kuan-hsiung (王冠雄), a professor in the Department of East Asian Studies at National Taiwan Normal University and chairman of the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law, told TCN that although the arbitral award is widely regarded as legally binding, its practical effect has been severely limited because China, a principal party to the dispute, refuses to accept it.

According to Wang, the structural weakness of international law lies in its lack of an effective enforcement mechanism, allowing power politics to increasingly erode its normative authority.

He said that over the past decade, the South China Sea has remained in a persistent "gray-zone" environment below the threshold of armed conflict, with countries gradually changing the status quo through coast guard operations, maritime standoffs, and ship collisions. 

These low-intensity actions, he said, have become increasingly normalized.

Wang said that that gray-zone activities are now expanding beyond the South China Sea toward waters surrounding the First Island Chain, making regional security issues increasingly interconnected. 

For Taiwan, he said, the issue is no longer merely a matter of international political competition but one that directly affects its national security and maritime rights.

Juichou Richard Hu (胡瑞舟), a retired major general and deputy director of the Taiwan Center for Security Studies, expressed a similar assessment.

Hu told TCN that the arbitration ruling failed to resolve the South China Sea sovereignty disputes. Instead, gray-zone confrontations have continued to intensify, leaving the South China Sea one of the world's most likely flashpoints for future conflict.

Impact on Taiwan

Wang said the tribunal's classification of Itu Aba as a "rock" rather than an "island" has had a substantial impact on Taiwan's legal position in the South China Sea and left Taiwan in the difficult position of maintaining its longstanding position while becoming increasingly marginalized.

He said that although the government continues to uphold Taiwan's South China Sea claims based on international law and UNCLOS, it had adopted a low-profile approach aimed at avoiding provocation and escalation, such a passive strategy may prove insufficient amid increasingly frequent gray-zone activities and the rapid restructuring of the regional security architecture. 

Without more proactive engagement, Taiwan risks becoming marginalized within emerging regional cooperation frameworks and shifting power dynamics, Wang said.

Hu echoed this view, arguing that the tribunal's determination that Itu Aba is legally a "rock" rather than an "island" prevents Taiwan from claiming a 200-nautical-mile EEZ based on the feature. 

He said the ruling not only weakened Taiwan's maritime rights in the South China Sea but also dealt a significant blow to the sovereignty claims that Taiwan shares in many respects with China, making Taiwan arguably "the biggest loser" in the arbitration.

Taiwan needs strategy

Wang said Taiwan should move beyond merely reiterating its longstanding position and instead adopt a more proactive strategy.

He suggested that the ROC strengthen its historical and legal arguments while improving its international messaging and public diplomacy. 

In the security domain, Taiwan should enhance maritime surveillance, improve coordination among maritime law enforcement agencies, and strengthen its capacity to respond to gray-zone activities, Wang said.

Diplomatically, Wang said Taiwan should deepen substantive cooperation with like-minded partners and transform international political support into tangible cooperative outcomes, thereby increasing Taiwan's visibility and influence within the evolving regional security architecture.

"Only by integrating legal, diplomatic, and security strategies can Taiwan effectively safeguard its sovereignty and maritime rights as the regional order continues to evolve," he said.

Further recommendations

Hu likewise urged the government to draw lessons from the arbitration.

He argued that the ROC possesses extensive historical archives and evidence supporting its sovereignty claims in the South China Sea but failed to make full use of those materials during the arbitration process.

Hu also said that Itu Aba has long been managed primarily as a military outpost rather than being developed in a manner consistent with the standards for inhabited islands under UNCLOS. 

He suggested strengthening civilian habitation and economic activity on the island to reinforce its legal status, while also beginning long-term planning for the future development of the Pratas Islands (Dongsha Islands).

He called on the government to build greater expertise and policy capacity to better prepare for future sovereignty disputes, economic and trade negotiations, and cross-strait affairs, enabling Taiwan to more effectively defend its sovereignty and national interests.