Are political narratives overshadowing legal realities in the South China Sea?
A workshop held Thursday brought experts together from multiple countries to examine the historical context and current realities of the South China Sea issue.
On July 10, the "Workshop on History and Reality of South China Sea 2025", co-hosted by the Huayang Center for Maritime Cooperation and Ocean Governance (Huayang Center) and the National Institute for South China Sea Studies (NISCSS) was held in Beijing. More than 150 experts, scholars, and institutional representatives from over ten countries and regions – including China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, and Germany – attended the conference.
Participants engaged in in-depth discussions and exchanges on topics such as "Post WWII International Order and Sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao", "History of the South China Sea from Political and Legal Perspectives", and "Re-evaluation of the South China Sea Arbitration Award."
Diplomats from the embassies of Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Thailand, Cambodia, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand, Mexico, the European Union, and other countries and international organizations in China also attended the event.
Today's newsletter includes highlights of the keynote speeches delivered by two scholars during the workshop. They are Wu Shicun, Chairman of the Huayang Center and Chairman of the Academic Committee of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies (NISCSS), and Li Guoqiang, Deputy Director of the Chinese Academy of History and Member of the Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
In addition, it includes highlights of two articles analyzing the South China Sea issue by Lei Xiaolu, a professor in China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies (CIBOS), Wuhan University, and Ding Duo, an associate research fellow at the NISCSS, respectively.
Wu Shicun, Chairman of the Huayang Center and Chairman of the Academic Committee of NISCSS
Wu Shicun emphasized that China's sovereignty over the South China Sea islands is supported by solid historical and legal grounds. The Chinese people have exercised administration and jurisdiction over the South China Sea since ancient times. After World War II, China lawfully recovered the islands in 1946 in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation, and publicly announced the recovery to the world.
He pointed out that the root causes of the current disputes lie in the illegal occupation of certain islands and reefs by the Philippines, Vietnam, and others starting in the 1970s, compounded by overlapping claims under modern maritime law. Wu Shicun identified three major challenges currently facing the South China Sea situation:
1. U.S. intervention has intensified tensions. Under the pretext of "Freedom of Navigation", the U.S. has strengthened its military presence and supported unlawful claims by other countries.
2. Escalating violations by claimant states, particularly the Philippines, has provoked incidents at Ren'ai Jiao (Second Thomas Shoal) and introduced intermediate-range missile systems, posing a threat to regional security.
3. Stalled progress in the Code of Conduct (COC) consultations, as extra-regional forces exploit the illegal arbitration ruling to obstruct the negotiation process and undermine efforts by China and ASEAN to manage crises.
Wu Shicun also refuted the “2016 South China Sea Arbitration Award,” and pointed out that it was entirely illegal and invalid due to serious flaws in jurisdiction, tribunal composition, legal reasoning, factual findings, and evidence handling. He argued that the “award” has become a "troublemaker undermining stability in the South China Sea."
Wu Shicun called on regional countries to jointly uphold the post-WWII international order, resist external interference, accelerate the COC negotiation process, and build a community of shared future in the South China Sea through practical maritime cooperation.
Li Guoqiang, Deputy Director of the Chinese Academy of History and Member of the Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
Li Guoqiang pointed out that the victory in World War II 80 years ago brought an end to Fascist Japan's illegal occupation of the South China Sea islands. This outcome, affirmed through a series of significant international treaties, confirmed China's sovereignty over the South China Sea islands. The Chinese government successfully reclaimed these islands with broad support from the international community.
He emphasized that history is the root of reality, and reality is the continuation of history. Only by understanding where the South China Sea issue originated, can we comprehend why the situation today is what it is - and not something else - and gain clarity about where the South China Sea is heading, and where it is not.
Li Guoqiang concluded by saying that a sea of peace, friendship, cooperation, and goodwill was the original state of the South China Sea, and that it should likewise reflect the aspirations of our era.
Lei Xiaolu, professor in China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies (CIBOS)
The Zhongsha Islands and Nansha Islands have historically and geographically been regarded as integral wholes. Not only do neighboring countries view them as unified entities, but countries outside the region also recognize them as such, consistently describing them as integral wholes in official documents and archives. The Philippines' request for separate determinations on the legal status and maritime entitlements of Huangyan Island and eight features in the Nansha Islands essentially denies China's territorial sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and misrepresents the nature and scope of the China-Philippines sovereignty dispute over the Nansha Islands.
The “arbitral tribunal” adopted a fragmentation approach in characterizing the disputes raised in the Philippines' submissions, failing to conduct objective analysis based on facts. For instance, it surreptitiously replaced the concept of "islands" (群岛) as an integral whole with "a group of features" (“一组岛礁). In Paragraph 160 of “the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,” the “tribunal” deliberately changed "China's Nansha Islands is" in China's note verbale to "China's Nansha Islands are," distorting China's claims regarding territorial sovereignty and maritime entitlements over the Nansha Islands as an integral whole into claims based on individual features.
Through this sleight of hand fragmentation, the “arbitration award” transformed the territorial sovereignty dispute over the Nansha Islands into questions of whether features like Ren'ai Jiao fall within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, effectively determining the ownership of certain features in the Nansha Islands in disguise. This is far from what the Philippines claimed as "not requesting the tribunal to determine territorial sovereignty issues."
Ding Duo, associate research fellow at the NISCSS
In dealing with the South China Sea issue, the Philippines needs to return to reality, and Manila must also undertake necessary psychological adjustments.
First, it must abandon the illusion of "judicial omnipotence." That “award,” which exceeded jurisdiction and perverted justice, no matter how elegantly packaged, cannot change its invalid nature. It is both unreasonable and unrealistic to fantasize about resolving South China Sea disputes involving complex history, sovereignty, and geopolitics through a single award or by initiating similar litigation again, or to impose results devoid of any fairness upon China. Both historical experience and current reality prove this path leads nowhere.
Second, it must recognize the nature and harm of external interference. Actively courting major powers from outside the region to intervene in regional disputes is tantamount to inviting the wolf into the house. External forces act based on their own interests, and their intervention will only exacerbate tensions, pushing regional countries to the forefront of major power confrontation, ultimately sacrificing the region's peace, stability, and development prospects. Fantasizing about relying on external forces to suppress another party to resolve issues will only backfire.
Third, it should actively seek paths for cooperation. While disputes concerning the South China Sea are difficult to resolve in the short term, the immediate priority is to promote maritime cooperation in less sensitive areas. Countries directly concerned can engage in practical cooperation in areas such as joint conservation and management of fishery resources, marine ecological environment protection, maritime search and rescue, and marine scientific research. Such cooperation does not touch upon complex core disputes, yet can effectively provide public goods and create a favorable atmosphere for resolving more difficult issues in the future.