By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

The image circulating on social media depicting the Monkey King confronting the Jade Emperor, accompanied by the slogan “Sa Amin ang West Philippine Sea!“, reflects understandable patriotic sentiment. Every Filipino has the right to love and defend the country’s sovereign rights.

However, patriotism must always be anchored on legal accuracy rather than political mythology.

The greatest danger in any territorial dispute is not merely foreign aggression. It is the spread of legal misconceptions that could encourage confrontation while overinterpreting Conventions to oversimplify one of the most complex maritime disputes in modern international law.

What the Arbitral Award Actually Decided

On 12 July 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rendered its Award in the arbitration initiated by the Philippines against China.

Contrary to countless political speeches and social media posts, the Tribunal never ruled that the Philippines owns any West Philippine Sea.

It simply had no jurisdiction to do so.

That distinction is one of the most misunderstood aspects of international law.

The Tribunal Could Not Decide Sovereignty

The arbitration was intentionally crafted by the Philippines as a case involving interpretation and application of UNCLOS, not territorial ownership.

Article 288 of UNCLOS limits an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.

Territorial sovereignty over islands, reefs, rocks, or maritime features falls outside that jurisdiction.

The Tribunal itself expressly acknowledged that it was not determining which State possesses sovereignty over disputed land features.

Likewise, it did not delimit maritime boundaries between competing States.

Those questions remain unresolved under international law. UNCLOS itself and the UN Charter provide avenues for conflict resolution.

Maritime Boundary Delimitation Is Different

There is an equally important legal distinction between:

territorial sovereignty;

maritime entitlement;

maritime boundary delimitation; and

sovereign rights within Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs).

These are entirely different legal concepts.

The 2016 Award examined whether certain maritime features generated Exclusive Economic Zones under UNCLOS and whether China’s “Nine-Dash Line” claim was legally consistent with the Convention.

It did not award ownership of the disputed islands to the Philippines.

Nor did it legally redraw international maritime boundaries.

Who Can Decide Territorial Ownership?

Under international law, disputes involving sovereignty over territory are ordinarily resolved through:

mutual agreement between States;

treaty settlements;

adjudication before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) where States consent to its jurisdiction; or

other accepted international dispute settlement mechanisms based on State consent.

Neither the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal nor UNCLOS itself possesses general authority to declare which nation owns disputed islands or territories.

That legal reality should not diminish the significance of the 2016 Award.

Rather, it places the Award in its proper legal context.

This Is Not a Bilateral Dispute

Another misconception is that the dispute involves only China and the Philippines.

It does not.

The South China Sea includes overlapping claims involving multiple governments, including:

China (People’s Republic of China);

Taiwan (Republic of China), which maintains claims similar in many respects to those of the PRC;

the Philippines;

Vietnam;

Malaysia; and

Brunei Darussalam.

In addition, Indonesia is not generally regarded as a claimant to the Spratly or Paracel Islands but has maritime interests and disputes concerning areas near the Natuna Islands where China’s claims have overlapped with Indonesia’s EEZ.

This complex web of overlapping claims explains why no single arbitral award could resolve every issue.

The Spirit of the Award Was Peaceful Resolution

Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of the 2016 Award is its broader context.

UNCLOS was never designed to encourage military confrontation.

Its fundamental objective is the peaceful governance of the oceans.

The United Nations Charter likewise obligates States to settle international disputes through peaceful means.

The arbitration was intended to clarify legal rights—not to become a justification for military escalation or brinkmanship.

Law should reduce the risk of conflict. It should never become an instrument for provoking one.

Diplomacy Remains the Only Durable Solution

History teaches that virtually every enduring territorial dispute has ultimately been resolved not by litigation alone but through diplomacy, negotiation, confidence-building measures, and political compromise.

International adjudication may clarify legal principles.

But it cannot manufacture political peace.

Even the strongest legal positions ultimately require diplomatic implementation.

As I have consistently argued in my previous writings on international law and regional security, sustainable peace in the South China Sea requires:

continued diplomatic engagement;

adherence to international law;

respect for freedom of navigation;

avoidance of military escalation;

confidence-building among claimant States; and

practical arrangements that preserve regional stability while protecting each nation’s lawful rights and interests.

Patriotism Requires Intellectual Honesty

Supporting Philippine sovereign rights does not require exaggerating what the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea has actually provided.

One may firmly defend the Philippines’ lawful maritime entitlements while acknowledging the legal limits of the 2016 Arbitration Award.

Doing so is neither “pro-China” nor anti-Filipino.

It is simply being faithful to international law.

The Philippines should continue asserting its lawful rights under UNCLOS, safeguard its maritime interests, strengthen alliances that promote regional stability, and vigorously pursue diplomacy consistent with the treaty’s commitment to peaceful settlement of conflicts and our Constitution’s renunciation of war and the rule of law.

True statesmanship rejects both surrender and reckless confrontation.

The challenge before Asia is not merely determining who possesses the stronger legal arguments.

It is ensuring that competing claims are managed through law, dialogue, and diplomacy rather than through coercion or armed conflict.

The South China Sea should become a sea of negotiated coexistence—not a battlefield created by legal misconceptions or nationalist rhetoric.

That is not weakness.

It is the highest expression of constitutional responsibility, international legality, and prudent statesmanship.

 

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: