Opening Session: Commemorative Conference on the 10th Anniversary of the SCS Arbitral Award

0:00 Excellencies, [music] uh, members of the diplomatic corp and of course ambassador Meron ambassador to Indonesia. Distinguished guests, distinct colleagues from ASEA and member states, representatives from academia, think tanks, civil society and partner institutions. Ladies and gentlemen, a pleasant morning to all of you. Allow me first and foremost to express

0:45 our profound appreciation to our host and partners from Indonesia. We have the universal Southeast Asia Daily and of course a special thanks to our partner think verb research. I thank you for your commitment for having made this important gathering possible. It is fitting that we convene here in Jakarta, the political heart of ASEAN, to commemorate an event whose significance extends beyond any single country, any single dispute or even any single generation. 10 years ago on the 12th of July 2016, the arbitral tribunal constituted under annex 7 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea issued

1:31 its award in the case brought by the Republic of the Philippines. The award was historic. It clarified the meaning and scope of maritime entitlements under clause. It reaffirmed that maritime rights derived from law rather than from historical narratives as supported by treaty obligations. It extended the normative foundations of peaceful dispute settlement. And perhaps more importantly, it demonstrated that even in in an era marked by profound asymmetries of power, states retain the ability to peacefully seek force without the use of force through institutions, procedures, and rules that have been collectively established by the

2:18 international community. For the Philippines, the 2016 Arbitra Award remains a source of immense national pride. But today, as we gather to commemorate its 10th anniversary, we must ask ourselves a more important question. What does the South China Sea arbitration award mean for Assean? This ultimately is the question we hope to answer today, if not to provoke more questions to come. For while the arbitration was initiated by the Philippines, the principles clarified by the award transcend bilateral concerns with China. The award goes beyond the Philippines. The principles are by extension applicable to Asan and to the

3:04 world. They speak directly to issues that matter most to every Southeast Asian nation. It concerns the integrity of the law of the sea, the constitution, the oceans. It concerns freedom of navigation and lawful commerce. It concerns marine environmental protection, fishery sustainability and energy security. It concerns the livelihoods of coastal communities and it broadly concerns our collective capacity to ensure that every dispute in our region are managed peacefully, predictably and in accordance with international law. Indeed, regardless of whether one is a claimment state or not, all Asan members possess a profound stake in preserving a maritime order

3:49 governed by agreed rules rather than by unilateral and one directional assertions. For us as members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, this has never been merely a legal matter. It is fundamentally a question about the kind of regional order we seek to sustain with ASEAN at the center. Do we aspire for a region where rights and responsibilities are determined through accepted legal frameworks? Do we believe that international commitments matter? Do we accept that peaceful dispute settlement mechanis mechanisms should remain available to states large and small alike? Or do we risk normal normalizing an environment in which legal certainty

4:35 becomes increasingly subordinated to strategic realities alone? The Philippines has consistently maintained that the 2016 Arbiter Award constitutes an important contribute contribution to the development of international maritime law. This extends beyond the South China Sea. The logic and reasoning behind it behind its formulation is referenced by international courts and tribunals. Its principles have informed scholarly debates and the clarification it brings have become part of broader discussions regarding ocean governance. Yet we also recognize the difficult reality. 10 years after the award implementation remains incomplete. The strategic environment has become

5:20 more complex and power asymmetries have become more pronounced. From the very start of this initiative, we have been reminded that defending international law, democracy, and even academic freedom requires fortitude. Particularly when facing pressures from powers that pay deep service to these values while actively undermining them. We are reminded that Asan itself continues to navigate diverse national interests, differing threat perceptions and varying approaches towards the South China Sea. A vulnerability that often gets exploited. These realities cannot be ignored. They must instead be confronted honestly because international law does not operate in a political vacuum. We

6:07 have realized that international law alone cannot alter material realities overnight and legal victories do not automatically translate into political outcomes. Nor do they eliminate the need for diplomacy, dialogue, confidence building and pragmatic cooperation. But neither should difficult realities diminish the enduring value of law. We have also learned that international law serves not merely as an instrument of enforcement. It serves as a framework for legitimacy and establishes standards of acceptable behavior. It shapes expectations and make the negotiating process a little more predictable. It provides us a common language through which interests may be articulatedly

6:52 defended. Although arriving at this remains a work in progress, it divorces a clarity on what is legally defensible under international law and over time it influences norms, institutions and state conduct. This is why we at the foundation for the national interest believe that the 10th anniversary of the arbitral award should not be viewed solely as an occasion for commemoration but also an opportunity for reflection and more importantly an opportunity for engagement. Indeed, if there is one lesson we have learned over the past decade, it is that legal achievements cannot remain confined within national boundaries. With Asian foremost in mind, the 36 16 arbitration award is to be

7:39 understood discussed and contextualized. And for us who are from the Philippines, the important and heavy task of socializing the award in all its complexity. Allow me to emphasize this point. For the Philippines, one of the unfinished task of the task of the last 10 years has been the broader regional socialization of the award. We recognize that as in number states possess different perspectives. Some are claimment states while others are not. Some approach the South China Sea through security lens primarily whereas others prioritize economic considerations. Some seek greater legal articulation while some prefer quiet. These differences we believe are natural. They reflect the diversity that

8:25 has always characterized asan. Yet diversity should not preclude dialogue nor should it prevent the emergence of shared understandings regarding the importance of preserving international law and maintaining a rulesbased order. In this sense, today's conference and may I say historical conference because this is the first conference of the arbitral award outside of the Philippines. It represents something more than an anniversary event. It represents an initial step, perhaps even the first of many conversations on how to deepen regional awareness regarding the award, on how to exchange perspectives on its implications, and to arrive at how ASEAN can engage more substantively with the

9:11 legal clarifications that the award provides. Ladies and gentlemen, we did not come to Jakarta seeking uniformity of opinion. Nor do we seek to impose a singular narrative. Instead, we come with humility and openness. We come prepared to listen and to learn from the experiences and perspectives of our ASEAN friends and partners. And we do so with a conviction that ASEAN dialogue remains indispensable for building trust and understanding. A decade hence the story of the 2016 arbitral award is still being written. It significance will not be measured solely by the legal text nor by diplomatic statements. Its ultimate legacy will be underwritten by future generations of Southeast Asians who

9:58 continue to believe that international law matters. May this conference serve not only a commemoration of what has been achieved but also the beginning of a sustained regional conversation about what still remains to be done. I would also like at this point to personally extend my sincerest gratitude to professor Arians here and Dr. Christians of Priyanka and their team who in their personal capacities have made this conference possible despite the odds that we have all faced in the in organizing this conference. Their commitment to see this important event was been a great source of assurance for us. We look forward to candid discussions, fresh ideas and meaningful partnerships in the days ahead. On

10:45 behalf of the Filipinian delegation, we thank our Indonesian friends for your gracious hospitality and for providing us this important platform for an exchange that will make history. Thank you and good morning to all of you. [applause] right here. Excellencies, Mr. Ambassador uh Philippines to Indonesia, Mr. Christopher Bay Monero, excellencies justice Antonio Carpio, distinguished speakers and delegates,

11:30 colleagues from the foundation of the national interest, tax Asia and the faculty of lawasilla. Ladies and gentlemen, On behalf of the innovation co-host, uh it is my great pleasure to welcome you to this conference on the 10th anniversary of the South China Sea Arbiter Award in Jakarta. I extend our sincere appreciation to all speakers, participants, partners and members of the organizing team who have made this effort to be here. Your presence reflects a shared recognition that development in the South China Sea concern not only the

12:17 claimment states. They affect regional peace, maritime security, economic connectivity, food security, the market environment and confidence in international law. 10 years is an important period for reflection. It is long enough for us to move beyond the immediate reaction for to the award yet recent enough for us to examine the continuing relevance with clarity and urgency. This anniversary should therefore be an opportunity for serious evaluation.

13:03 In this important moment, ladies and gentlemen, we should ask for progress. What legal questions did the award clarify? How has it influenced Stat practice, policy, and diplomacy? What progress has been made in managing disputes and preventing incidents at sea? What obstacles remain in translating legal principles into practice? And finally, how can the world and the United Nations Convention on Locy contribute to cooperation rather than deepen confrontation? The significance of an international legal decision is not measured only by

13:52 the reaction it receives on the day it is delivered. It is also measured over time by the legal reasoning it contributes, the policies it informs, the expectation it saves, and the space it creates for peaceful and rule-based engagement. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, Indonesia was not a party to the arbitration and does not regard itself as a claimment state in the territorial dispute over features in South China Sea. Nevertheless, Indonesia has a direct and legitimate interest in peace and stability, freedom and safety of navigation, the

14:39 protection of sovereign rights under arm clause, and the maintenance of a regional order governed by law rather than by power alone. Indonesia despite that me and Julie is not uh trying to make the same point but we do have refer the same thing. Indonesia makes its legal position clearly in the note verbal that has been shown before by the Indonesian mission to the United Nation of New York reaffirmed the centrality of the AM clause and relied on the legal clarification provided by the 2016 auditor award and quoted as I mentioned again that the auditor award

15:27 decided that any historic rights that the people's of China may have had to the living and non-living resources were superseded by the limits of maritime zones provided by 1982. This is Indonesia's official policy statement then and still valid until today. Ladies and gentlemen, this position should not be misunderstood as a hostility towards any country, nor it should be interpreted as an attempt to take sides in every dimension of the dispute. Indonesia's support for ANOS and for the legal significance of the award fundamentally serve a common legal

16:13 framework. The award process rather than weakens the legal framework established by the ANLOS. It should therefore be accorded dual legal significance rather than dismissed as a lacking value as some may claim. Today we can recognize the award as a constructive milestone in the continuing development of a rule-based marine order. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, again this conference is not intended to assign blame to any existing positions. It seeks to provide constructive forum for the exchange of ideas, evidence, legal analysis and policy experience in

17:00 support for regional peace and cooperation. Differences of few regarding the award and the way forward are both legitimate and expected. What matter is that they are expressed responsibly, considered fairly and assessed on their merits. The organizers have sought to accommodate a broad range of relevant perspectives. In that spirit, freedom of expression and academic discussion should be carefully safeguarded so that speakers and participants may offer good faith, evidence-based views without undue pressure or concern. Ladies and gentlemen, in this regard, I

17:46 must speak frankly about this development. Since the early stages of preparing this conference, we had received full and constructive support from the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and from a number of relevant ministries and government institution. Several Indonesian government representatives had been scheduled to deliver keynote remarks and participate as speakers on the panels. Unfortunately, however, two days before the conference, we were informed that the support has been withdrawn. Consequently, several speakers from the Indonesian government institutions who have been expected to contribute to the keynote session and final discussion had to withdraw from the from the program.

18:34 We do recognize that the government institution have their own procedures, responsibilities and consideration. At the same time, the timing of this decision, its consequences for the participation of public officials, the broader message that it may convey deserve serious attention. This situation is very concerning and alarming. This situation is concerning not only because the program required adjustment at a very short notice but also because the such developments may inadvertently discourage open academic discussion. They may be perceived as placing undue pressure on scholarly engagement and could affect the freedom of opinion,

19:21 expression and academic exchange that should be carefully safeguarded in a democratic society governed by rule of law. I raised this matter not to attribute responsibility or to turn this opening ceremony into political exchange, but because transparency is fundamental to maintain trust. To remain silent on a development that has directly affected to this conference would not fully reflect the spirit of openness that this forum seeks to promote. Our response should nevertheless remain measured, principled and constructive. Through the quality, balance and

20:07 integrity of our discussions, we should demonstrate that an academic forum can address difficult and sensitive questions without becoming adversial, partisan and irresponsible. This conference continues because the commitments of institutions, partners, speakers and participants who valued informed, open and independent academic discussion. Over the two days, this conference will examine the award within its broader regional context and explore practical pathways toward peace, stability, and cooperation. We are very privileged to have speakers

20:52 coming from Indonesia, China, the Philippines Vietnam Malaysia Brunalam, Singapore and Thailand. Our academic integrity will reflect it in respectful evidence-based discussion that distinguish legal analysis from political hostility. The program addresses ASEAD's role, the code of conduct, maritime domain awareness, sustain sustainable resource management, incident prevention and professional cooperation. 10 years of the reward. The region needs constructive use of international law, a source of clarity, restain predictability and peaceful engagement and dialogue that addresses disagreement

21:39 without allowing it to escalate into hostility. Ladies and gentlemen, excellencies, distinguished colleagues, 10 years also provide an important opportunity to reflect seriously on the award while recognizing the broader challenges of the South China Sea remain complex. May this conference contribute to greater clarity, mutual understanding, responsible dialogue and practical cooperation grounded in international law. On behalf of the nation co-host, we thank you for the Philippines colleagues that all the way from up there to here to Jakarta and I thank you for all of us to have here your presence and for the

22:26 next constructive engagement. I wish you all productive and meaningful conference. Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me to this forum. We celebrate or we mark in this conference the 10th anniversary of the landmark July 12, 2016 arital award which clarified for all countries especially the coastal states in the South China Sea, the maritime entitlements of China and the Philippines in the South China Sea.

23:12 There are two core issues decided in the July 12, 2016 arbital award. The first core issue is that China's nine now 10 dash line cannot claim waters or maritime resources in the South China Sea. Claims to historic rights beyond the territorial sea have been extinguished by the 1982 UN Convention on the WC or ANKOS. States can only claim beyond the territorial sea waters and resources based on the provisions of Ankos itself. Second, an island above water at high tide is entitled to a 200 nautical mile

23:58 exclusive economic zone only only if the island can sustain at a proper standard a stable community of people based on the natural resources of the island itself. The salination plants or imported garden soil do not count. None of the islands in the Spratley list is habitable based on this criteria and thus none of these islands is entitled to a 200 nautical mile EEZ. This particular ruling in fact makes China a big winner because of the requirement under this ruling on

24:45 how an island can acquire a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone means that many of the islands uh in the Pacific or in the uh Caribbean Sea or in other parts of the world which are tiny which cannot sustain uh human habitation can no longer claim a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. So the high seas have actually been expanded tremendously by this ruling and uh of course the number one beneficiary is China because China uh has the largest fishing fleet in the world and uh you can just imagine uh an island

25:34 in the middle of the ocean if it does not have an EZ if it cannot support human habitation can only have a territorial sea of uh 1,500 square kilmters. But if it is an exclusive economic zone, because it is habitable, it has an exclusive economic zone of 431,000 square kilometers. So you can just imagine the the the large body of water that an an island can generate if it is habitable. And that is why I consider this a major part of the ruling of the

26:20 July 12, 2016 arbitr. China has the largest fishing fleet. Therefore, China is the number one beneficiary of this particular ruling. also uh because uh the tribunal said uh China's exclusive economic zone uh is uh China's coastline is uh about 800 nautical miles away from the Philippines and therefore our 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone does not overlap with China's 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone which means there are high seas in between and this is important

27:05 because in the high seis treaty last December 22, 2025, China ratified the high seis treaty also known as the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction or BBNJ and this treaty as the name implies The title of the three implies applies only to waters with what that are beyond national jurisdiction. It cannot apply to waters within the jurisdiction of any coastal state. in its ratification last December 2022 2025 China

27:51 declared formally that uh there are no high seas in the South China Sea and thus the high seas treaty does not apply to the South China Sea. China claims that the waters within the 10 dash line are China's jurisdictional waters and the treaty applies only to waters beyond national jurisdiction and therefore China is saying formally that there are no high seas in the South China Sea because waters within the 10 line are our jurisdictional waters. No,

28:37 this position of China formally declared prevents the existence of the high seas in the South China Sea as well as exclusive economic zones of other states within the waters enclosed by the 10 dash line because China is saying everything within the 10 dash line are our jurisdictional waters. So it cannot be the exclusive economic zone of other states. Now under the doctrine of uh acquisitions in international law unless the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunai Indonesia uh

29:22 protest this formally. They are deemed to have acquised to China's claim that there are no high seas in the South China Sea and everything within the 10 or China's jurisdictional waters. There are serious adverse consequences to these other coastal states in the South China Sea because first their fishermen can no longer fish in the high seas of the South China Sea. The high seas of the South China Sea comprise about a fifth of the entire South China Sea. And in the high seas, there's freedom of navigation and overflight, freedom of fishing for all countries of the world. So even

30:08 a landl country like Laos can fish if they want in the high seas of the South China Sea. So we will lose the right to fish in the high seas of the South China if we do not protest. And also in the high seas beyond national jurisdiction countries of the world can apply for permit to explore and exploit the mineral resources. And according to China, the metal hydrates in the South China Sea can supply the electrical needs, power needs of China for 100 years. So there are rich mineral resources uh

30:53 that all countries have a right to exploit exploit in the high seas beyond national jurisdiction. But China is saying all of those waters are our jurisdictional waters. So unless we protest we are deemed to have acquised and we give up all of these things. Of course the effect of this uh the third effect is that China will say nobody objected. Therefore, you have now accepted that the 10 dash line gives us entitlements beyond or over the above compass because you have acquised and this will retroact China will say this event supersedes

31:43 the July 12 2016 orbital award. This is a superven event. Of course, it does doesn't mean that China's position is correct, but it gives China an argument, a lawfare argument to tell the world that it is not final. The July 12, 2016 award is not final because of a superven countries of the world have accepted our 10 dash line. Of course uh if it it is if it is presented to an arbitical tribunal it doesn't mean China will do will win but it gives China an argument to prolong this dispute and to

32:29 encourage other countries not to take sides first because that is this issue that is still hanging now to prevent this uh prejudicial effects of uh declaration of China that there are no high seas in the South China Sea. The solution is simple. We just all protest. The moment we protest then China cannot say that we acquist. China cannot invoke the doctrine of acquisition and to protest doesn't cost us anything. we just present a paper to the uh UN secretary general and that bars immediately China from saying we

33:15 acquis and we are uh we are bound by the doctrine of acquisitions under international law. So we should all protest and it does not cost us anything. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose to protest. Failure to protest will result in a self-inflicted irreparable harm to our national interest. All all of us. While protesting will prevent such self-inflicted harm to our national interests. I end here my short remarks. Thank you for your patience and kind attention. [music]

34:06 >> [music]