On South China Sea, government backs tribunal ruling against Beijing
The Ministry of External Affairs stated that India's position on the South China Sea is well established, emphasising freedom of navigation and overflight, other lawful uses of the sea, and unimpeded lawful trade, consistent with international law as reflected in UNCLOS
The statement followed a joint declaration issued by a group of countries, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom and the United States, that reaffirmed the 2016 arbitral ruling and rejected the legal basis of an expansive maritime claim in the South China Sea
The Ministry described the 2016 ruling, delivered ten years ago, as a significant milestone and a basis for peaceful resolution of disputes among the concerned parties
India called for maritime disputes to be resolved peacefully and in accordance with UNCLOS, without resorting to threat or use of force
The 2016 South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China)
On 12 July 2016, a five-member arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) delivered its award in a case brought by the Philippines against China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague. The tribunal ruled that China's "nine-dash line" claim and assertion of historic rights over most of the South China Sea had no legal basis under UNCLOS.
Key Details
- The case was administered by the PCA, but the tribunal itself was a UNCLOS Annex VII arbitral panel — distinct from the PCA's own permanent institutional bodies
- China invoked its 2006 UNCLOS declaration excluding maritime boundary and historic-title disputes from compulsory arbitration and boycotted the proceedings, but the tribunal held this did not deprive it of jurisdiction
- The ruling found that none of the disputed high-tide features in the Spratly Islands qualified as an "island" capable of generating an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf under Article 121 of UNCLOS
- The award is final and binding on the parties under UNCLOS's compulsory dispute-settlement mechanism, though it carries no enforcement mechanism of its own
The current joint statement, and India's response to it, both invoke this decade-old ruling as the settled legal baseline for evaluating maritime claims in the South China Sea — reinforcing that the dispute is fundamentally about applying UNCLOS's zones-and-entitlements framework rather than historic claims.
UNCLOS Maritime Zones — Territorial Sea, EEZ and Continental Shelf
UNCLOS (1982, in force 1994) establishes a graduated system of maritime zones measured from a coastal state's baseline: a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea (Article 3) where the coastal state exercises sovereignty; a 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (Article 57) with sovereign rights over resources; and a continental shelf extending up to 350 nautical miles in certain cases. "Historic rights" claims that are not tied to these zones, such as China's nine-dash line, sit outside this codified framework.
Key Details
- India ratified UNCLOS in 1995 and has consistently supported the zones-based framework over historic-claim assertions in maritime disputes globally
- Freedom of navigation and overflight beyond the territorial sea is a customary and codified UNCLOS right (Articles 58, 87) that both littoral and non-littoral states may exercise
- Rocks or low-tide elevations that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life generate, at most, a territorial sea and no EEZ (Article 121(3)) — the basis for the tribunal's finding on Spratly features
- Roughly one-third of global shipping trade transits the South China Sea, making its legal status significant for India's own Indo-Pacific and East Asia-bound trade
India's emphasis on "lawful uses of the sea" consistent with UNCLOS reflects support for this zones-based entitlement framework over competing historic-claim doctrines, aligning with the tribunal's 2016 reasoning.
India's Act East Policy and Indo-Pacific Engagement
India's stated interest in South China Sea freedom of navigation stems from its Act East Policy (launched 2014, evolving from the 1992 Look East Policy) and its broader Indo-Pacific outlook, which treat unimpeded sea lines of communication through Southeast Asia as vital to India's trade, energy security and strategic partnerships with ASEAN, Japan, Australia and the United States.
Key Details
- India is not a claimant state in the South China Sea dispute but has repeatedly called for peaceful resolution based on UNCLOS, including in joint statements with Quad partners (India, US, Japan, Australia) and ASEAN-linked forums
- India's ONGC Videsh has held hydrocarbon exploration blocks off Vietnam's coast in waters that overlap China's nine-dash line claim, giving India a direct stake distinct from third-party observer status
- The 2016 ruling remains a reference point cited in multilateral statements (Quad, G7, ASEAN-linked dialogues) despite China's non-acceptance of the award
India's response situates it among states that treat the 2016 ruling as the applicable legal standard, consistent with its long-standing Act East and Indo-Pacific positioning on freedom of navigation.
- 2016 South China Sea Arbitration: PCA-administered, UNCLOS Annex VII tribunal, ruling delivered 12 July 2016 in Philippines v. China
- UNCLOS: territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles (Article 3); EEZ up to 200 nautical miles (Article 57); India ratified UNCLOS in 1995
- The July 2026 joint statement was issued by 14 countries including Australia, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovenia, the UK and the US
- Roughly one-third of global shipping trade transits the South China Sea annually
- India is not a claimant state in the dispute but holds hydrocarbon exploration interests off Vietnam through ONGC Videsh