A watershed moment in maritime law and geopolitics unfolded 10 years ago when an arbitral tribunal in The Hague ruled that China's sweeping "nine-dash line" claim over almost the entire South China Sea had no legal basis under international law.

Never before had a small developing country successfully challenged the maritime claims of a global power before an international tribunal—and won. It demonstrated that even in an era increasingly defined by military and economic might, international law could give weaker states a powerful voice.

The ruling accomplished something far more enduring: it established, before the international community and the judgment of history, that the maritime rights of the Philippines are grounded in law while China's expansive claims are not.

In effect, the Philippines’ historic victory was not merely territorial—it was moral and legal.

The July 12, 2016 Arbitral Award transformed the Philippines from merely a claimant in a territorial dispute into the holder of one of the strongest legal positions in modern maritime law.

By stripping China's claims of legal legitimacy, the Award became invaluable. Every country that invokes the rules-based international order, every freedom-of-navigation operation, every joint statement affirming the award, and every diplomatic protest filed by the Philippines rests on that same legal foundation.

That legal foundation remains very much alive today. Speaking at last week’s Kapihan sa Manila Prince Hotel, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, who led the Philippine legal team before the tribunal, renewed his call for the government to file a second arbitration case against China, this time to seek compensation for billions of dollars in environmental damage caused by China’s large-scale reclamation and destruction of coral reefs in the West Philippine Sea.

Jardeleza's proposal underscores an important point: the 2016 Award was not the end of the story. It remains a legal foundation upon which the Philippines can continue asserting its rights and holding China accountable under international law.

The significance of the Arbitral Award was perhaps best reflected in China's own reaction in 2016. The ruling intensely affected China’s officialdom, prompting a barrage of toxic, though mostly rhetoric intended to discredit the ruling and undermine the UN-backed tribunal and the Philippines as well.

Even before the ruling was announced, China launched an extraordinary diplomatic and propaganda campaign. Its ambassadors around the world wrote opinion pieces sent to local newspapers in a desperate bid to get the support of the international community and rally to its side.

China’s efforts spoke volumes. Many found it difficult to understand why it devoted enormous resources to attacking a judgment it truly considers meaningless. But China understood the ruling’s impact. It had not merely lost a legal case. It had lost the battle for legitimacy.

Yet while Beijing fought desperately to undermine the ruling, the Philippines itself never fully embraced its victory. The Duterte administration opted for what officials called a "soft landing," muting what should have been one of the proudest moments for the Philippines.

Perhaps that helps explain why some Filipinos are conflicted a decade after the ruling was handed down. Filipino fishermen and resupply missions still face harassment and coercive actions by Chinese Coast Guard ships.

Frustrated Filipinos ask: If we won, why the continued coercion within our exclusive economic zone? It’s a natural question.

But we can find solace in world history, which shows that legal victories lead to profound political and social transformation years—even decades—later.

The Nuremberg Trials after World War II established that leaders could be held personally accountable for crimes against humanity. At the time, many dismissed the proceedings as symbolic. Yet those principles eventually became the foundation of modern international criminal law and institutions like the International Criminal Court.

The court decision in Brown v. Board of Education did not immediately end racial segregation in America. Even the legal and diplomatic campaign against apartheid in South Africa did not quickly free Nelson Mandela, but it shaped international opinion, influenced diplomatic pressure, strengthened sanctions, and gradually altered the global consensus.

The evolution of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea itself was gradual. It took years for many states to ratify the treaty, and decades for its principles to become accepted norms of international law governing navigation, fisheries, and exclusive economic zones. What begins as legal doctrine often matures into political reality.

The 2016 Award belongs to that tradition. Its significance never lay in the expectation that China would suddenly withdraw its vessels after the ruling. Rather, it permanently changed the legal foundation of the dispute. Before 2016, China could still argue that its sweeping claims were open to legal interpretation. The Award decisively rejected those claims.

China could continue ignoring the ruling, but it cannot erase it. History will not allow it. That is the enduring power of the Arbitral Award. It is not merely a victory for one generation of Filipinos, but a legacy for every generation that follows. ([email protected])