Gilberto Teodoro Confronts China Over South China Sea Arbitration Ruling

A tense exchange over the South China Sea erupted in Seoul after Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto C. Teodoro Jr. publicly challenged China's rejection of the landmark 2016 arbitration ruling, turning what began as a discussion on international law into a sharp confrontation over Beijing's conduct and its approach to regional diplomacy. The incident unfolded on September 8th during the Seoul Defense Dialogue, an annual multilateral security forum hosted by South Korea's Ministry of National Defense. Teodoro was taking part in a discussion about maritime security challenges and the importance of following international law when a member of the forum staff approached him with a handwritten note from the audience. What happened next quickly became the focus of the session. The note contained China's familiar position on the 2016 South China Sea arbitration, a case initiated by the Philippines under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. Rather than self-setting the message aside, Teodoro decided to read it publicly and respond to its arguments point by point. Reading from the note, Teodoro said China's position on the South China Sea arbitration is clear, consistent, and firm. The message went on to argue that the arbitration violated fundamental principles of international law. That prompted Teodoro to immediately question the logic behind the statement, particularly because both the Philippines and China are parties to UNCLOS. The confrontation touched the heart of one of the region's longest-running legal and geopolitical disputes. The Philippines initiated arbitration against China in January 2013 over maritime entitlements and activities in the South China Sea. A tribunal constituted under Annex 7 of UNCLOS delivered its final award on July 12, 2016. The tribunal did not determine ownership of disputed islands in order to draw a maritime boundary between China and the Philippines. Instead, it examined questions including the levee, gal bases for China's claims to historic rights, the maritime status of several features, and whether particular Chinese activities were consistent with obligations under UNCLOS. Among its most important conclusions, the tribunal found no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within areas covered by its sweeping Nine-Dash Line claim. The decision also upheld important elements of the Philippines' maritime rights within its exclusive economic zone. China, however, refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings and has consistently rejected the resulting award. That same position was reflected in the paper passed to Teodoro in Seoul. Reading another portion of the message, Teodoro said the so-called award is illegal, null and void, but Teodoro pushed directly against that argument. His response was based on a fundamental difference between Manila and Beijing over the legal significance of the ruling. Under UNCLOS, decisions issued by a tribunal with jurisdiction under the convention's dispute settlement system are final and must be complied with by the parties to the dispute. China maintains that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the case and argues that the arbitration was improperly initiated without its consent. Beijing therefore says it neither accepts nor recognizes the ruling. The Philippines maintains the opposite position, that UNCLOS itself provides compulsory dispute settlement procedures covering qualifying disputes, and that China's refusal to participate did not prevent the tribunal from hearing the case. For Teodoro, China's rejection of the decision was not evidence that the award lacked legal force. Instead, he portrayed Beijing's refusal as the reaction of a country that had received an unfavorable legal judgment. When the note stated that China neither accepted nor recognized the arbitration award, Teodoro said, of course, because Yobabile lost that short response, drew attention because it stripped away much of the diplomatic language normally surrounding the dispute. But the disagreement was not only about the substance of China's South China Sea claims. Teodoro also objected strongly to the way the Chinese position had been delivered while he was speaking at an international forum hosted by South Korea. Forum organizers later said that the note originated from a Chinese military attache at the Chinese embassy in Seoul. According to the organizers, the attache handed the paper to a staff member and requested that it be delivered to the Philippine defense secretary. The staff member apparently believed the message had come from Teodoro's own delegation and therefore passed it directly to him while the discussion was underway. That detail gave the episode an additional diplomatic dimension. Teodoro questioned whether passing such a message to a speaker during an international forum was appropriate, especially when the appropriate discussion was being held in a third country. He argued that the issue went beyond a simple disagreement between Manila and Beijing. Teodoro said, How can you deal with a country in an international forum beyond the question asked to me disrespecting the organizers of this forum? How do you expect to deal with it civilly? His criticism suggested that, in his view, diplomatic disagreement should still remain within the normal standards of conduct expected at an international security gathering. He also emphasized respect for South Korea as the host country and for the officials, experts, and delegates attending the event. The confrontation comes at a time when relations between the Philippines and China remain heavily influenced by disputes in the South China Sea. Under President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Manila has repeatedly stressed that it intends to defend its maritime rights through international law while expanding security cooperation with the United States and other partners. China continues to insist that it has sovereignty and maritime rights over areas it claims in the South China Sea and rejects attempts by the Philippines and other governments to use the 2016 arbitration award against Beijing's position. The competing interpretations have contributed to repeated confrontations at sea, particularly around contested waters and features claimed by both sides. For Manila, the 2016 ruling has become one of the central legal foundations of its maritime policy. Philippine officials regularly describe the award as final and binding and argue that it clarifies the country's rights under UN's bill. Beijing continues to characterize the ruling as illegal and without binding force. That difference is unlikely to disappear through a single exchange at an international conference. But what made the Seoul incident unusual was the direct and highly public nature of Teodoro's reaction. Instead of responding through a later diplomatic statement, formal note, or press brief, I know the Philippine defense secretary answered the Chinese position immediately in front of an international audience. His remarks transformed the handwritten note itself into evidence for his broader criticism of China's diplomatic behavior. The episode also highlighted an important distinction often lost in political arguments surrounding the South China Sea case. The 2016 tribunal did not rule that the Philippines owns every disputed territory in the South China Sea. It did not determine sovereignty over islands or reefs contested by China and the Philippines, and it did not establish a full maritime boundary between them. Its conclusions instead dealt with rights and obligations under UN's laws. That distinction matters because both governments continue to make territorial claims that extend beyond the specific legal questions decided in the arbitration. What the tribunal did determine, however, was highly significant for maritime jurisdiction. Its findings rejected the legal basis for historic rights claims exceeding the limits established by a close and clarified the maritime entitlements generated by several contested features. That is why Manila continues to treat the ruling as central to its position, and why Beijing continues to reject it. For the Philippines, accepting China's argument that the award has no force would mean weakening one of Manila's strongest legal tools in the maritime dispute. For China, accepting the tribunal's decision would require abandoning legal arguments Beijing has consistently defended for a decade. The confrontation in Seoul therefore reflected something far larger than a disagreement over a piece of paper. It represented two fundamentally different views of how the maritime dispute should be understood and resolved. China emphasizes historical claims, sovereignty, and direct negotiations between the states involved. The Philippines increasingly emphasizes the arbitration award and international support for what Manila described as a rules-based maritime order. Teodoro's reaction also showed that the Philippine government is prepared to challenge China's position publicly when those competing interpretations collide on the international stage. Toward the end of the confrontation, he turned from technical arguments about maritime law to a broader criticism of diplomatic conduct. The defense secretary suggested that respect for international institutions must be accompanied by basic standards of behavior between countries, particularly when governments participate in forums designed to encourage dialogue. Teodoro said, so perhaps basic decency and behavior is what China needs to do. The remark was followed by applause from members of the audience. For Teodoro, the issue was no longer simply whether Manila and Beijing disagreed over a legal ruling. His argument was that international relations require governments to engage with one another through established rules and with respect for the institutions and countries providing a platform for discussion. The exchange may not change China's legal position, nor is it likely to resolve the South China Sea dispute. But it demonstrated how deeply the 2016 arbitration continues to shape relations between Manila and Beijing 10 years after the ruling was issued. It also showed that the disagreement is increasingly playing out far beyond the disputed waters themselves. In defense forums, diplomatic meetings, and international institutions where both sides are trying to convince other governments that their interpretation of international law should prevail. For the Philippines, the ruling remains final, binding, and central to its maritime position. For China, the award remains rejected and without legitimacy. And in Seoul, those competing positions collided publicly with Teodoro, making clear that Manila has no intention of allowing Beijing's rejection of the ruling to go unanswered.