On the 8th Anniversary of the landmark ruling in the SouthChina Sea Arbitration, China denounced the South China Sea arbitration as a mere political charade, accusing the Philippines of breaking mutual agreements and misusing the UNCLOS dispute mechanism. Declaring the ruling illegitimate, China pledged to staunchly defend its territorial and maritime rights, while sharply criticizing the US and its allies for allegedly exploiting the issue to exert undue pressure on Beijing.

The arbitration was a bold legal move by the Philippines, challenging China's extensive claims in the South China Sea, particularly the contentious "nine-dash line." The Philippines contended that these claims were inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which both countries are signatories.

The tribunal unequivocally found that China's claims to historic rights within the nine-dash line had no legal basis under UNCLOS. Several disputed maritime features, including Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal, were classified as low-tide elevations (LTEs) that do not generate territorial seas or exclusive economic zones (EEZs).

Scarborough Shoal was classified as a rock, which also does not generate an EEZ. China was found to have violated the Philippines' sovereign rights by interfering with its fishing and petroleum exploration activities, constructing artificial islands, and failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from operating in the Philippines' EEZ. The tribunal condemned China's land reclamation and construction of artificial islands for causing severe harm to the marine environment.

China's response was one of outright rejection. It declared the ruling "null and void" and refused to participate in the proceedings, arguing that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over issues it deemed to be about territorial sovereignty. This stance has complicated efforts to resolve the disputes through international law, as the ruling, while legally binding, lacks an enforcement mechanism without China's cooperation.

Southeast Asian nations such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia have seen their EEZ rights bolstered by the ruling. However, regional dynamics remain tense due to China's continued assertion of its claims and activities contrary to the ruling.

The ruling has received widespread support from the international community, including India, the European Union and the United States, Nevertheless, enforcing the ruling remains challenging without China's cooperation.

The ruling has clarified legal standings under UNCLOS but has not resolved the strategic and political tensions in the region. The Philippines has varied its approach over different administrations, ranging from confrontation to seeking bilateral agreements with China. The long-term impact of the ruling lies in its potential to shape international norms and influence future maritime disputes.

The Philippines v. China arbitration case has reinforced the legal framework of UNCLOS but also highlighted the limitations of international law in resolving disputes involving major powers. The ruling has significant implications for regional security, maritime rights, and international legal precedents in the South China Sea. As the world marks the anniversary of this landmark decision, the challenges of enforcement and regional stability continue to underscore the complex interplay of law and geopolitics in this vital maritime region.