Will ASEAN remain silent? – The diplomat

The ASEAN Leaders’ Declaration on Maritime Cooperation, adopted at the 48th Summit in Cebu on May 8, 2026, referenced the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) no less than 18 times, reaffirming the key principles of peace and stability, peaceful resolution of disputes and respect for UNCLOS.

Yet ASEAN has never officially recognized the 2016 South China Sea arbitral award issued by an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS – the very convention that ASEAN itself has repeatedly affirmed as the overarching legal framework governing all activities at sea.

July 2026 marks the 10th anniversary of the arbitral ruling in favor of the Philippines in its case against China regarding the South China Sea. How will ASEAN respond to this important legal step?

ASEAN’s historic response to the 2016 award

Immediately after the awarding of the South China Sea Prize in 2016, ASEAN failed to forge a unified position. At the 49th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (AMM), held in Vientiane, just two weeks after the ruling, member states failed to reach consensus to include a direct reference to the ruling in the joint communiqué. According to Philippine officials, each proposed reference was vetoed by a member state without explanation or counter-proposal. The same pattern re-emerged at the 30th ASEAN Summit in Manila in 2017 and in subsequent years. Nearly a decade later, ASEAN is still struggling to reach consensus on the 2016 price.

Any attempt to predict ASEAN’s response requires examining how its member states have responded to this price over the past decade. Given ASEAN’s principle of consensus, the collective reflects each member’s national interests and policy preferences.

The sharp differences among ASEAN member states can be classified into three groups. The first is made up of countries which have openly aligned themselves with the Chinese position, namely Cambodia and Laos, and to a lesser extent Thailand. Cambodia openly opposed the move and pledged to oppose any ASEAN statement endorsing it. As chair of ASEAN in 2016, Laos maintained formal neutrality in order to fulfill its responsibilities, while remaining supportive of rejecting Beijing. Thailand issued a statement on July 12, 2016, in which it meticulously avoided the words “decision”, “sentence” or “court”. Many observers have grouped Thailand alongside Laos and Cambodia, arguing that the country displayed a tendency to look to Beijing in pursuit of defense acquisition deals and infrastructure investments.

The second group supported or invoked the sentence to varying degrees, notably in Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and later the Philippines. Vietnam has taken the most positive stance within ASEAN, officially “welcoming” the award and regularly relying on the tribunal’s legal findings to defend its own maritime rights and sovereignty claims in the South China Sea.

Indonesia initially responded by calling for restraint and respect for international law. However, in May 2020, Jakarta submitted a note verbale to the United Nations Secretary-General that effectively accepted the award’s conclusion showing that the “nine-dash line” had no legal basis.

Malaysia, continuing its policy of “quiet diplomacy”, has avoided direct confrontation with Beijing while relying on elements of the award’s legal reasoning in its 2019 submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) regarding a continental shelf extension claim.

The Philippines has followed a more mercurial path. Under President Rodrigo Duterte, who took office just weeks before the ruling was handed down, Manila adopted a notably restrained response and actively downplayed the award while pursuing closer economic ties with China. This approach has changed significantly under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who elevated the 2016 award to a central pillar of the Philippines’ South China Sea strategy.

The third is the neutral or silent group, made up of Brunei, Singapore and Timor-Leste. Brunei has continued to play the role of “silent” claimant in the South China Sea, avoiding direct confrontation and refraining from issuing any official statement on the award. Singapore said it had “taken note” of the sentence and was studying its implications. Nevertheless, during a visit to Washington in 2016, Lee Hsien Loong, then prime minister, reportedly stressed the importance of respecting the outcome of the arbitration, drawing criticism from Beijing. Similarly, Timor-Leste, which was not yet a member of ASEAN at the time, also avoided taking a direct position on the award, but insisted that UNCLOS was the “Constitution of the Oceans”.

ASEAN’s consensus mechanism has allowed opponents of the price to block favorable speech while supporters avoid public confrontation. Even if there is active support from Vietnam or the Philippines, it is not enough to overcome the opposition and silence of other members. This structural reality explains why, despite numerous ASEAN foreign ministers’ meetings and summits over the past decade, the organization has never issued a collective statement formally recognizing or directly invoking the 2016 award.

Will ASEAN change its response?

The 10th anniversary of the arbitral award coincides with the Philippine Chairmanship of ASEAN in 2026 and ASEAN’s continued efforts to conclude an “effective and substantive” Code of Conduct (COC) for the South China Sea. Will this lead to a change in the bloc’s approach to awarding the prize?

The most likely scenario is that ASEAN continues to face a collective dilemma in reaching consensus on any declaration relating to the 2016 price. After all, this trend has remained unchanged over the past decade.

The second possibility is that the Philippines, as chair of ASEAN, could promote stronger language in the President’s Statement or Joint Communiqué of the 59th AMM, scheduled for July 21, 2026. Although a direct reference to the 2016 award would remain politically difficult, ASEAN could adopt stronger language, emphasizing the need to “fully respect the legal processes undertaken pursuant to UNCLOS.” This would set a linguistic precedent for future ASEAN declarations. In the short term, this would not immediately change China’s behavior; however, this could increase the long-term reputational cost of failing to comply with international law.

The least likely scenario would be a collective ASEAN statement formally recognizing or endorsing the 2016 award. ASEAN’s consensus decision-making process makes such an outcome highly unlikely. At present, there is no indication that the strategic calculations of Member States are moving in this direction. This situation is unlikely to change unless pro-China alignments within ASEAN weaken, member states reduce their economic dependence on China, or Beijing takes steps that are widely seen as crossing a political and diplomatic “red line” that forces a unified ASEAN response. Yet what exactly constitutes such a threshold remains unclear, making the prospect of collective price approval remote in the foreseeable future.

What ASEAN’s continued silence means

The 10th anniversary of the 2016 arbitration award comes at a particularly precarious time. China’s coercive activities in the South China Sea have not diminished, but have increased steadily. ASEAN’s silence sends a worrying message that a major power can simply ignore a binding decision issued by an international tribunal established under accepted legal procedures, without paying significant political or diplomatic costs. This impression may contribute to the perception that international law is only effective when the interests of powerful states are not at stake, which would erode not only the authority of the award itself, but also the broader credibility of the rules-based international order.

Meanwhile, the 2026 deadline to conclude the COC, jointly approved by ASEAN and China in 2023, is approaching, and doubts about its completion continue to grow. Wu Shicun, president of the Huayang Center for Maritime Cooperation and Ocean Governance, argued that the COC is unlikely to be finalized under the Philippine presidency. A major obstacle is the continuing disagreement over the relevance of the 2016 award. Manila is expected to emphasize its legal principles and conclusions associated with the decision, while Beijing opposes any attempt to link the COC to the process or its conclusions. As ASEAN continues to avoid mentioning price to preserve internal consensus or appease Beijing, the COC process may remain incomplete.

The significance of the 10th anniversary of the 2016 South China Sea arbitral award lies not in its ability to transform the dispute itself, but in its ability to force all relevant actors to reassess their positions in a regional environment that has changed dramatically since 2016. Although the award has not changed China’s behavior on the ground, it has profoundly reshaped the language, argumentation and legal framework of the China Sea debate southern.

Ultimately, ASEAN’s response to this anniversary will reflect a legitimacy struggle between two opposing views: one that “might makes right” and the other that international law, despite the absence of robust enforcement mechanisms, remains one of the few instruments available to small and medium-sized states in their interactions with major powers. Whether ASEAN should officially weigh in on the 2016 award remains a matter of debate. However, whatever approach is chosen, ASEAN must find the most effective way to define its own role and credibility as a champion of a rules-based regional order in the years to come.

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos