THE RULE OF LAW AT SEA AND THE CHALLENGE OF NON-COMPLIANCE: A DECADE AFTER THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION

Abstract

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) establishes a comprehensive international maritime order. Its compulsory dispute settlement system serves as a cornerstone of the LOSC`s architecture. Naturally, compliance with the decisions of the LOSC mechanisms is critical to the functioning of a rules based international legal order. Non-compliance risks undermining the authority of international courts and tribunals and eroding the integrity of the LOSC regime. This article examines the binding force of LOSC dispute settlement decisions, focusing on the implications of the 2016 South China Sea (SCS) arbitration between the Philippines and China. Despite the Tribunal's unanimous award, China has consistently maintained a policy of non-compliance thus far. This defiance, particularly from a great power, causes tensions within the LOSC dispute settlement system. Nonetheless, State Practice shows overwhelming compliance in most cases. This demonstrates that the system remains to be a credible mechanism. The SCS award, while currently resisted by China, provides a strong legal basis that can influence future jurisprudence and state practice. The article notably points out that China's non-compliance may not be permanent.

Keywords

• Rule of Law at Sea
• South China Sea Arbitration
• UNCLOS
• Annex VII Arbitration
• Compliance with Arbitral Awards

DENİZDE HUKUKUN ÜSTÜNLÜĞÜ VE TAHKİM KARARINA UYMAMA SORUNU: GÜNEY ÇİN DENİZİ TAHKİM KARARININ ARDINDAN ON YIL

Abstract

Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi, 1982 (BMDHS) denizlere ilişkin kapsamlı bir uluslararası hukuk düzeni tesis etmektedir. BMDHS’nin zorunlu uyuşmazlık çözüm sistemi, Sözleşme mimarisinin en temel yapı taşlarından biridir. Bu çerçevede, BMDHS’de öngörülen mekanizmalar tarafından verilen uluslararası mahkeme ve tahkim kararlarına riayet, kurallara dayalı uluslararası hukuk nizamının işlerliği bakımından kritik önemi haizdir. Bahsekonu kararlara riayet edilmemesi ise, uluslararası uyuşmazlıkların çözüm mekanizmalarının itibarını zayıflatma ve BMDHS rejiminin insicamını aşındırma riski taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma, BMDHS mekanizmalarının kararlarının bağlayıcı niteliğini incelemekte; özellikle Filipinler ile Çin arasında 2016 tarihli Güney Çin Denizi tahkimi kararının denizde hukukun üstünlüğü bakımından doğurduğu sonuçlara odaklanmaktadır. Tahkim mahkemesinin oybirliğiyle verdiği karara rağmen Çin, bugüne kadar sozkonusu kararı tanımama ve uygulamama yönünde istikrarlı bir tutum sürdürmüştür. Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi’nin (BMGK) daimi üyesi ve aynı zamanda büyük bir deniz gücü olan bir devletin bu yöndeki mezkûr tutumu, BMDHS uyuşmazlık çözüm sisteminin uzun vadeli sürdürülebilirliği bakımından yapısal gerilimlere neden olmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, uluslararası devlet uygulamaları genel olarak BMDHS mekanizmalarının kararlarına yüksek düzeyde uyumun kural, bunlara riayet etmemenin ise istisna olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu durum, mevcut sistemin bütün olarak hâlen güvenilir bir uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemi olmayı sürdürdüğüne işaret etmektedir. Güney Çin Denizi kararı Çin tarafından halihazırda dirençle karşılanmakla birlikte, benzer konularda, gelecekteki uluslararası hukuk içtihatlarını ve devlet uygulamalarını etkileyebilecek ziyadesiyle güçlü bir hukuki zemin sunmaktadır. Çalışma ayrıca, Çin’in mevcut olumsuz tutumunun, geçmişteki diğer örnekler ışığında, zaman içerisinde değişebileceğine dikkat çekmektedir.

Keywords

• Güney Çin Denizi Tahkimi
• BMDHS
• Ek VII Tahkimi
• Tahkim Kararlarına Riayet
• Denizde Hukukun Üstünlüğü

References

1. ASIL Debate: Compulsory Jurisdiction in International Dispute Settlement (2017) 111 Am Soc'y Int'l L Proc 129. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, ‘Arbitration Support Tracker’ https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-support-tracker/ accessed 24 August 2025.
2. Beckman R and Sim C, ‘Maritime Boundary Disputes and Compulsory Dispute Settlement: Recent Developments and Unresolved Issues’ in Myron H Nordquist and others (eds), Legal Order in the World’s Oceans: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Brill 2018).
3. Becker-Weinberg V, ‘The SCS Arbitration and the China– Philippines Relations Beyond the Award’ in Stephen Minas and H Jordan Diamond (eds), Stress Testing the Law of the Sea Dispute Resolution, Disasters & Emerging Challenges (A Law of the Sea Institute Publication 2016).
4. Boyle, Alan E, ‘Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction’ (1997) 46 ICLQ 37.
5. Campbell C and Salidjanova N, ‘South China Sea Arbitration Ruling: What Happened and What’s Next?’ (Center for a New American Security, 2016) https://www.cnas.org/publications/report/south-china-sea-arbitration-ruling-what-happened-and-whats-next accessed 1 September 2025.
6. Carpio AT, Defending Philippine Sovereign Rights in the West Philippine Sea (YouTube, 4 July 2020) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GWcgKNMxjo accessed 11 December 2025.
7. Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore, South China Sea News Updates https://cil.nus.edu.sg/research/ocean-law-policy/south-china-sea/south-china-sea-news-updates/ accessed 11 December 2025.
8. China and Russian Federation, ‘Letter dated 10 July 2025 from the Permanent Representatives of China and the Russian Federation to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General’ (11 July 2025) UN Doc A/79/970–S/2025/463.

9. Churchill R, ‘The Persisting Problem of Non-compliance with the Law of the Sea Convention: Disorder in the Oceans’ (2012) 27 IJMCL 816.
10. Churchill R and Hartmann J, Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee Inquiry: UNCLOS: fit for purpose in the 21st century? (Written Evidence, 26 November 2021). Collins R, ‘Navigating Choppy Waters’ in R Buchan, D Franchini and N Tsagourias (eds), The Changing Character of International Dispute Settlement (Cambridge 2022).
11. Davenport T, ‘Procedural issues arising from China’s non-participation in the South China Sea Arbitration’ in S
12. Jayakumar and others (eds), The South China Sea Arbitration: The Award and Its Implications (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018).
13. Declarations made by States Parties under Article 298, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) accessed 14 August 2025. Desierto DA, ‘Enforcement Options and Paths to Compliance: Disputants and Global Stakeholders in Philippines v. China’ (2018) 8 AsianJIL 71.
14. Evans Sir MD and Ioannides NA, 'The ICJ and the Law of the Sea dispute settlement system' in Achilles Skordas (eds), Research Handbook on the ICJ (Elgar 2025). Evans, MD and Lewis R, Islands, Law and Context: The Treatment of Islands in International Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2023).
15. Fietta S and Cleverly R, A Practitioner’s Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation (OUP 2016).
16. Government of the People's Republic of China, ‘Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines’ (7 December 2014).
17. Government of China, ‘Statement of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sovereignty and Maritime Rights and Interests in the South China Sea’ (12 July 2016).
18. Herosian C, 'Enforcing the Unenforceable: How to Rely on International Law to Curb China from Illegal Territorial Claims in the SCS' (2018) 41 Suffolk Transnat'l L Rev 335.
19. Hoogelan M, ‘The South China Sea Dispute and the Role of LOSC in the Settlement of the Dispute’ (2019) 32 Rev Quebecoise de Droit Int'l 93.
20. Huneeus AV, ‘Compliance with International Court Judgments and Decisions’ in Karen J Alter, Cesare Romano and Yuval Shany (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (OUP 2013).
21. Japan Ministry of Defense, China’s Activities in the South China Sea: China’s Development Activities on the Features and Trends in Related Countries (April 2025) https://www.mod.go.jp/en/d_act/sec_env/pdf/ch_d-act_b.pdf accessed 11 December 2025.
22. Jayakumar S and others (eds), The South China Sea Arbitration: The Award and Its Implications (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018).
23. Klein N, Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Cambridge 2005).
24. Klein N, 'Expansions and Restrictions in the LOSC Dispute Settlement Regime' (2016) 15 Chinese Journal of International Law 94.
25. Klein N and McNally J, Compliance with Decisions of the Dispute Settlement Bodies of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Brill 2023).
26. Kraska J, ‘Deterrence and Compliance in East Asia’s Maritime Order’ in James Kraska and Heecheol Yang (eds), Peaceful Management of Maritime Disputes (Routledge 2023).
27. Ku J and Mirasola C, ‘Tracking China’s Compliance with the South China Sea Arbitral Award’ (Lawfare, 3 October 2016) https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/tracking-chinas-compliance-south-china-sea-arbitral-award accessed 9 August 2025.
28. Kunoy B, The Scope of Compulsory Jurisdiction and Exceptions Thereto under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, The Canadian Yearbook of Int Law, Vol. 58 (2020).
29. Lanovoy V, ‘Dispute Settlement and Ocean Governance’ in Stephen Borg and others (eds), Research Handbook on Ocean Governance (Elgar 2022).
30. Marvel, MJC, The South China Sea Arbitration (Cambridge University Press 2024).
31. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, ‘Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines’ (31 May 2024) https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zy/gb/202405/t20240531_11367334.html accessed 11 December 2025.
32. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, ‘Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian’s Regular Press Conference on July 12, 2024’ (12 July 2024) https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xw/fyrbt/lxjzh/202407/t20240730_11463258.html accessed 11 December 2025.
33. Mitchell SM and Owsiak AP, 'Judicialization of the Sea' (2021) 115 American Journal of International Law 1.
34. Noyes J, ‘Compulsory Third-Party Adjudication and the UNCLOS’ (1989) 4 Conn Journal of Law 1.
35. Nguyen LN, 'The Contribution of LOSC Dispute Settlement Bodies to the Development of the Law of the Sea' (PhD dissertation, Darwin College 2018).
36. Nguyen LN, 'The LOSC Dispute Settlement System: What Role Can It Play in Resolving Maritime Disputes in Asia?' (2018) 8 Asian Journal of International Law 1.
37. Nguyen LN and Vu TM, ‘China, Philippines After the Arbitration: Does Non-Compliance Matter?’ (The Diplomat, 2016) https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/china-philippines-after-the-arbitration-does-non-compliance-matter/ accessed 1 September 2025.
38. Nguyen HT and Nguyen TLH, 'The SCS Arbitration Award: 5 Years and Beyond' (The Diplomat, 2021) https://thediplomat.com/2021/07/the-south-china-sea-arbitration-award-5-years-and-beyond/ accessed 1 September 2025.
39. Oxman BH, ‘Nonparticipation and Perceptions of Legitimacy’ (2019) 37 Berkeley Journal of International Law 235.
40. Oxman B, ‘Courts and Tribunals: The ICJ, ITLOS, and Arbitral Tribunals’ in Donald Rothwell and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (OUP 2015).
41. Phan HD, 'International Courts and State Compliance: An Investigation of the Law of the Sea Cases' (2019) 50 Ocean Development & International Law 70.
42. Phan HD and Nguyen LN, 'The SCS Arbitration: Bindingness, Finality, and Compliance with LOSC Dispute Settlement Decisions' (2018) 8 Asian Journal of International Law 1.
43. Powell EJ and Mitchell SM, 'Forum Shopping for the Best Adjudicator' (2022) 9 J Territory & Maritime Studies 1
44. Proelss A (ed), The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Hart Publishing 2017).
45. Qu B, ‘China’s Theory and Practice on Maritime Dispute Resolution’ in Takashi Yanagawa (ed), Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea State Practice of China and Japan (Springer 2021).
46. Reichler PS, ‘The Rule of Law and the Path to a Just and Lasting Peace in the SCS’ (2017) 1 Japan Review 9.
47. Reichler P, Center for Strategic & International Studies, ‘Recent Trends in the South China Sea and U.S. Policy: Day 2 Welcome and Keynote’ (YouTube, 11 July 2014) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCoiBS1bdIY accessed 2 September 2025.
48. Roach JA, ‘Dispute Settlement Mechanisms for SCS Issues’ in Keyuan Zou (ed), Routledge Handbook of the South China Sea (Routledge 2021).
49. Rosenne S, ‘Arbitrations under Annex VII of the UNCLOS’ in Rüdiger Wolfrum (eds), Law of the Sea: Liber Amicorum
50. Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Martinus Nijhoff 2007). Rothwell D and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (OUP 2015).
51. Rothwell D, Elferink AO, Scott K and Stephens T, ‘Charting the Future for the Law of the Sea’ in Donald Rothwell and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (OUP 2015).
52. Spijkers O, ‘Non-participation in Arbitral proceedings under Annex VII United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Arctic Sunrise and South China Sea compared’ in A del Vecchio and R Virzo (eds), Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by international courts and tribunals (Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2019).
53. Talmon S, ‘The South China Sea Arbitration and the Finality of ‘Final’ Awards’ (2017) 8 JIDS 2.
54. Tamada D, 'LOSC Dispute Settlement Mechanism' (2018) 61 Japanese Yearbook of International Law 1. The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in New Zealand, ‘China Stays Committed to Peace, Stability and Order in The South China Sea’ (18 April 2022) http://nz.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/ztbd/NANHAI2015/202204/t20220418_10669054.htm accessed 2 September 2025. UNGA Res 55/2, United Nations Millennium Declaration (18 September 2000). Tanaka Y, ‘The South China Sea Arbitration After Eight Years’ (2024) 103 International Law Studies 607.
55. Tzeng P, ‘A Strategy of Non-Participation before International Courts and Tribunals’ (2020) 19 Law & Practice of International Courts & Tribunals 1.
56. Waseem M, ‘ITLOS at 20’ in Stephen Minas (eds), Stress Testing the Law of the Sea Dispute Resolution (A Law of the Sea Institute 2016).
57. Whomersley C, ‘The South China Sea Arbitration and its Implications’ in Keyuan Zou (ed), Routledge Handbook of the South China Sea (Routledge 2021).
58. Wolfrum R, ‘Potential of the International Dispute Settlement Mechanisms as Established Under LOSC’ in Lan Anh T Nguyen and Hai Dang Vu (eds), Viability of LOSC amid Emerging Global Maritime Challenges (Springer 2021).