South China Sea Arbitration Ruling Fails to Resolve Disputes After 10 Years
Translated from Indonesian, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- A decade after the South China Sea (SCS) arbitration ruling, it has not resolved disputes, with regional security dynamics growing more complex.
- Experts emphasize the need for ASEAN nations to build mature, inclusive, and sustainable governance mechanisms rather than debating the ruling itself.
- Continued strategic competition among major powers and the risk of security dilemmas complicate the region, necessitating ongoing diplomacy and cooperation.
Ten years after the South China Sea (SCS) arbitration ruling was announced in 2016, it has failed to provide a definitive solution to the ongoing disputes in the region. Instead, the security landscape has become increasingly intricate, according to Anak Agung Banyu Perwita, a member of the South China Sea Council.
Perwita stated that the primary challenge now is not to re-debate the arbitration ruling but for ASEAN nations to develop more robust, inclusive, and sustainable governance frameworks. He noted that tensions in the SCS persist, evidenced by heightened maritime law enforcement, patrols, fisheries surveillance, and disputes over maritime features, exclusive economic zones, and resource exploration.
The main challenge today is no longer debating the arbitration ruling, but how regional countries build more mature, inclusive, and sustainable governance mechanisms.
The region's security environment is further complicated by the strategic competition between major global powers. While increased defense cooperation, including joint patrols and military exercises, can bolster national defense capabilities, it also risks deepening the security dilemma. This dilemma arises when one nation's security measures are perceived as threats by others, potentially triggering an arms race and fostering mistrust.
Perwita explained that the arbitration ruling has not become a politically accepted foundation for all parties involved in the disputes. Differences in understanding its legal implications, scope of application, and dispute resolution mechanisms have limited its political influence. Consequently, resolving SCS issues still relies heavily on diplomacy, crisis management, and sustained regional cooperation. Indonesia, not being a party to the arbitration, has a vested interest in maintaining regional peace and stability.
The arbitration ruling has not become a politically accepted foundation by all parties involved in the dispute.
Originally published by Republika in Indonesian. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.