By Dr. Hon. Lee Hoey Simon
On 13 July 2026, the South China Sea Security Roundtable Dialogue was held in Hong Kong, during which the report "New Refutations of the South China Sea Arbitration Award" was released. The report systematically examines the actual effects of the so-called award under international law. A decade on, the treatment of the South China Sea arbitration award by international judicial and arbitral institutions, as well as the assessments of the international legal academic community, has clearly outlined the true status of this award—it has never been capable of genuine implementation under international law. At the same time, Hong Kong, as a unique platform for international rule-of-law dialogue, plays an irreplaceable role in disseminating fair legal reasoning and correcting fallacies.
I. The "Silence" of International Judicial and Arbitral Institutions: Marginalisation of the Award
Over the past decade, major international judicial institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), ) have generally avoided or not adopted the Award's core reasoning concerning Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and historic rights in subsequent cases involving island status, historic rights, and exclusive economic zone entitlements.he report points out that over the past ten years, the actual impact of the "Award" on state practice in the international community has been very limited, and international judicial and arbitral institutions have generally and deliberately avoided the "Award" in subsequent jurisprudence. Wu Shicun, Founding Dean and Chairman of the Academic Committee of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, stated at the press conference: "Over the past decade, this illegal 'award' has neither been echoed in the practice of other states, nor recognized and followed by international judicial institutions, nor endorsed by the international academic community."
This "silence" is by no means accidental. Citation of precedent by international judicial institutions generally signifies recognition of the precedential legal value of that case. The deliberate avoidance of the South China Sea arbitration award stems precisely from the widespread recognition within the international legal community of its fundamental legal defects—lack of jurisdiction, procedural injustice, and substantive fallacies in reasoning. No serious international judicial institution would stake its judicial credibility on such a controversial award.
II. Systematic Critiques from the International Legal Academic Community
Beyond the "institutional silence" of international judicial bodies, critiques from the international legal academic community have been equally systematic and profound.
Several former presidents of the ICJ and ITLOS, as well as renowned international law of the sea scholars, have offered systematic criticisms of the award regarding treaty interpretation, the regime of islands and rocks, and historic rights. Numerous authoritative international scholars have raised sharp criticisms from multiple dimensions, including textual interpretation, historical investigation, and logical consistency. Participating scholars noted that the award's actual impact on state practice in the international community has been very limited and that the academic community has generally taken a critical view of the award's legal reasoning.
Stephen Fietta, founder of Fietta LLP (United Kingdom), stated at the press conference that a decade of state practice, international judicial practice, and academic research demonstrates that the "South China Sea Arbitration Award" has had a very limited impact on the development of the international law of the sea. Participating experts remarked that the so-called award is a "negative precedent" that violates international law.
III. The Practical Effect of the Award: Never Truly "Implemented"
The observation of British scholar Fietta is also pivotal: "Following the 2016 Award, the maritime practice of states has not been rewritten by it. Many states continue to claim exclusive economic zones and continental shelves over certain maritime features, which is inconsistent with the Arbitral Tribunal's interpretation of Article 121(3) of UNCLOS concerning 'rocks'."
This statement reveals a core truth: a truly authoritative and persuasive award should be capable of influencing and shaping subsequent state practice and international judicial decisions. The South China Sea arbitration award, however, is precisely the opposite. States' maritime practices have continued as before, and international judicial institutions have deliberately avoided citing it. The award has "never truly 'landed'" at the level of international law of the sea; it "has been used more as a geopolitical tool by certain forces."
A decade later, the award has neither resolved the dispute nor promoted peace but has instead "obstructed the process of rule-of-law construction in the South China Sea region and become a countercurrent in the history of international law development." " Facts demonstrate that this award has not, and cannot, bring peace and tranquility to the South China Sea.
IV. Hong Kong's Role: A Unique Platform for International Rule-of-Law Dialogue
It is precisely against this backdrop that the report "New Refutations of the South China Sea Arbitration Award" was released in Hong Kong, which carries profound judicial significance.
Hong Kong possesses a well-established independent common law system and serves as a natural hub for East-West rule-of-law dialogue. The report conference was jointly organized by the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, the Asian Academy of International Law, and the Huayang Ocean Research Centre, with legal support and advisory services provided by Fietta LLP (UK). By engaging in reasoned debate framed in the logic familiar to the Western legal community, the report is less susceptible to simplistic labeling by foreign media and enables cross-jurisdictional legal reasoning that is both well-grounded and persuasive.
As an internationally neutral judicial platform connecting the world, Hong Kong hosts consulates of various countries, multinational shipping enterprises, international think tanks, and media outlets year-round. Hosting the release event in Hong Kong facilitates the simultaneous transmission of complete factual information to a diverse global audience.
Participating scholars considered that the release of the "New Refutations of the South China Sea Arbitration Award" report seeks to enable states within and beyond the region to clearly recognize the nature and harmfulness of the award, while also demonstrating that China's "non-acceptance of any claims or actions based on the 'award'" is precisely an act of safeguarding its own rights and claims in the South China Sea, defending regional peace and stability, and upholding the international rule of law.
V. Conclusion
A decade later, it is clearly evident that the South China Sea arbitration award has been marginalized in international judicial practice. International judicial institutions have deliberately avoided it, the international legal academic community has systematically criticized it, and state maritime practice has remained unchanged. This award has never truly attained authority or validity under international law, but certain states have repeatedly exploited it as a tool for geopolitical purposes.
In this process, Hong Kong has played a unique and critical role. Leveraging its common law system and international connectivity, Hong Kong has provided an irreplaceable platform for disseminating fair legal reasoning. Looking ahead, continued cultivation of Hong Kong's rule-of-law and think-tank resources, along with the establishment of independent and equitable channels for international rule-of-law expression, will contribute to the gradual dismantling of hegemonic narratives in international law and promote the construction of a new, genuinely equal, and non-hegemonic international legal order for the oceans.
The author is a Member of the Hong Kong Basic Law Committee of the NPCSC and holds Ph.D. in Law at Tsinghua University
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Related News:
Opinion | Double standards: Whose 'rules-based order'
Comment