ANALYSIS: Ten Years After The Hague: What the Ruling on the South China Sea Really Means

The exact text of the joint statement

According to U.S. News, citing the official text, the statement asserts that the ruling handed down ten years ago “is final, legally binding, and definitive between China and the Philippines.” This wording, repeated verbatim by a primary source, emphasizes through its very repetition the finality of the ruling, as if to preempt Chinese objections. Using the word “final” twice in the same sentence is never a rhetorical coincidence; it is an admission that someone, somewhere, continues to claim the opposite.

According to the AJC (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, via the AP), the statement was led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and twelve other nations, including Japan and the Philippines.

A Complete List Still Uncertain

The exhaustive list of the fourteen signatories has not been confirmed in detail: the AJC and US News agree on the number fourteen, but neither publishes a complete, verifiable list of names. This gap in the documentation should be noted rather than filled with speculation.

CGTN Reiterates Its Rejection on the Same Day

China’s state-run television network CGTN also issued a statement on July 12, 2026, reiterating China’s rejection of what it calls the 2016 “arbitration ruling,” which it maintains has been null and void since it was issued. This same-day response illustrates a well-oiled reactive diplomatic strategy, prepared in advance for this predictable anniversary. Responding on the very same day to an anniversary that has been announced for ten years is not a reaction; it is preparation presented as spontaneity.

A Necessary Methodological Caution

The exact wording used by CGTN warrants word-for-word verification before any direct, verbatim quotation—a precaution that is essential when dealing with an official source involved in an active diplomatic conflict.

Stop Supporting an “Illegal” Decision

On July 14, 2026, China urged Europe to stop supporting what it calls the “illegal” ruling on the South China Sea, in order to avoid damaging bilateral relations, according to The Star (Malaysia). This appeal, made two days after the statement, shows that China’s diplomatic pressure now extends beyond the Asia-Pacific region. Asking Europe to remain silent on a ruling from The Hague amounts to acknowledging that, for Beijing, Europe’s silence carries more weight than that of Manila or Tokyo.

Concerns About Diplomatic Isolation

This geographical expansion toward European capitals—which were not parties to the 2016 arbitration—reveals China’s concern about the diplomatic isolation that this reaffirmation could exacerbate.

No Mechanism for Compulsory Enforcement

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has no direct enforcement power: this is a general principle of international law, not specific to any particular source from July 2026, but essential to understanding the true scope of this reaffirmation. A judgment may be legally binding in theory yet remain ineffective if the party against whom it is rendered refuses to comply. A tribunal may be correct in law but lose in practice: this is exactly what ten years of non-enforcement have just demonstrated.

This lack of an enforcement mechanism explains why China has been legally condemned since 2016 and continues, in 2026, to reject that condemnation without any direct consequences.

Political pressure, not a sanction

The value of this declaration lies not in any enforcement power—which it has never had—but in the cumulative political pressure it exerts by keeping the issue alive, ten years later. What fourteen countries cannot impose by force, they can at least refuse to forget; sometimes, collective memory is the only leverage that remains.

A precedent kept on the table

Although the sources do not allow us to assert a direct effect on Chinese behavior, this reaffirmation maintains a legal precedent available for other states or future disputes.

What these sources establish is the existence of a 2016 legal decision that was never enforced, reaffirmed ten years later by fourteen countries, followed by a Chinese rejection via CGTN and an appeal to Europe. Each element of this sequence is based on an identified primary or secondary source.

What this reaffirmation does not change is the structural absence of an enforcement mechanism: ten years of Chinese rejection prove that a “final” ruling on paper can remain ineffective in practice. The Hague has been right for ten years without a single nautical chart having been altered; legal truth and reality on the ground, at times, simply do not align. Fourteen voices repeating the same phrase ten years later do not prove their strength; above all, they prove that they have nothing else to offer but repetition.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist