China–Philippines War of Words Deepens Over South China Sea Ruling

A sharp public exchange between Philippine Defence Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. and China has renewed attention on the South China Sea, where overlapping claims, increasingly tense maritime encounters and the Philippines’ defence alliance with the United States make the region one of Asia’s most closely watched security flashpoints.

Tensions between China and the Philippines have escalated again after Philippine Defence Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. publicly challenged Beijing over its rejection of the landmark 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling.

The confrontation unfolded during the Seoul Defense Dialogue in South Korea on September 8, where Teodoro was discussing maritime security and the importance of countries complying with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. During the discussion, he was handed a note setting out China’s long-standing rejection of the arbitration award.

What followed was an unusually direct diplomatic exchange that has since triggered an equally sharp response from Beijing.

Teodoro Reads Chinese Position Aloud

The note said China does not accept or recognise the 2016 arbitration award and regards the ruling as having no binding force.

Teodoro read parts of the message aloud and immediately challenged its arguments.

When the note reiterated China’s refusal to accept the award, Teodoro replied:

“Of course, because you lost.”

He went on to accuse Beijing of showing disrespect toward both international law and the defence forum and described China’s behaviour in the South China Sea as involving “coercion, bullying and aggression.”

Yonhap reported that forum organisers identified the person who passed the message as a military attaché from the Chinese Embassy in Seoul, although AP noted that the precise origin of the note was initially unclear.

China Hits Back

Beijing responded on September 9, rejecting Teodoro’s criticism and reiterating that its position on the arbitration case remained unchanged.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning accused Philippine officials of seeking attention and “stirring up trouble,” and called on Manila to stop actions that China says undermine bilateral relations and stability in the South China Sea.

China maintains that it neither accepts nor recognises the 2016 award and argues that maritime disputes should instead be addressed through dialogue and negotiations between the countries directly involved.

The result is another public clash between two governments whose relations have deteriorated significantly amid increasingly frequent confrontations at sea.

What Did the 2016 Arbitration Actually Decide?

The dispute has its roots in a case brought by the Philippines against China in 2013 under UNCLOS.

On July 12, 2016, an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS issued its final award.

Among its major findings, the tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within areas of the South China Sea covered by its so-called “nine-dash line” beyond the maritime rights provided by UNCLOS.

It also ruled that features including Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal could not generate exclusive economic zones of their own, helping establish that certain waters involved in the dispute fall within the Philippines’ maritime entitlements.

Importantly, the tribunal did not decide sovereignty over the disputed islands themselves or establish a maritime boundary between China and the Philippines. Its focus was primarily on maritime rights and entitlements under UNCLOS.

China refused to participate in the arbitration and has consistently rejected the award and the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The PCA records that Beijing maintained throughout the proceedings that it did not accept the arbitration initiated by Manila.

Philippines Says Ruling Is Final and Binding

Manila takes the opposite position.

The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly described the award as final and binding, arguing that it provides legal clarity over maritime rights in the South China Sea.

In June 2026, the department rejected fresh Chinese criticism of the ruling, saying it had become an “unassailable” part of international law governing the dispute.

The ruling also received renewed international backing on its 10th anniversary in July 2026.

The Philippines, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Canada and several European and Indo-Pacific countries issued a joint statement reaffirming that the award is final and legally binding between China and the Philippines regarding the matters decided by the tribunal.

Why the South China Sea Matters

The South China Sea is far more than a territorial dispute.

It is one of the world’s most important maritime corridors and sits at the centre of strategic competition between China, Southeast Asian states and the United States.

China claims sovereignty over islands and extensive maritime areas across much of the sea.

The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also maintain competing claims to various islands, reefs and surrounding waters.

The dispute becomes especially sensitive when coast guard or military vessels from rival claimants operate in close proximity.

Incidents involving water cannons, collisions, blocking manoeuvres and physical confrontations have repeatedly raised concerns that an encounter intended to remain below the threshold of armed conflict could accidentally escalate.

Recent Confrontations Have Become More Serious

The dispute is no longer limited to diplomatic statements.In July, the Philippine military accused Chinese coast guard personnel of attacking and injuring a Filipino sailor during a confrontation at a disputed shoal.

According to the Philippine account, Chinese personnel repeatedly struck the sailor with a wooden baton and damaged his vessel. China disputed Manila’s version of events and said Philippine boats had rammed a Chinese vessel.

The competing accounts illustrate one of the central problems in the South China Sea: the two sides often provide sharply different descriptions of the same confrontation.

These incidents are also why Teodoro has argued that some recent Chinese actions should no longer simply be described as “gray-zone” activity — pressure designed to remain below the level of open warfare.

US–Philippines Treaty Raises the Stakes

One of the biggest reasons the dispute carries wider international consequences is the Philippines’ defence relationship with the United States.

Washington and Manila are bound by the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty.

The United States has repeatedly said that an armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels or aircraft — including Philippine Coast Guard vessels — anywhere in the South China Sea would fall within the scope of its treaty commitments.

That does not mean every collision, water-cannon incident or maritime confrontation automatically triggers a military response.

However, it means a sufficiently serious attack involving Philippine personnel or government vessels could rapidly turn a bilateral China-Philippines confrontation into a much larger international crisis.
Teodoro said this week that U.S. officials had reassured Manila that American commitments under the Mutual Defense Treaty remain unchanged.

Philippines Is Expanding Other Security Partnerships

Manila has also been broadening its security relationships beyond Washington.

Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the Philippines has increased defence cooperation with partners including Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France and Britain, while modernising its own armed forces.

Philippine officials say these partnerships are intended to strengthen deterrence and protect the country’s maritime rights.

Beijing, however, has repeatedly criticised increased military involvement by outside powers in the South China Sea and argues that such moves risk making regional tensions worse.

This fundamental disagreement — whether international partnerships provide stability or intensify confrontation — remains at the heart of the regional security debate.

Could the South China Sea Become Asia’s Next Major Flashpoint?

In many respects, it already is one of Asia’s major security flashpoints.

But a major war is not inevitable.

China and the Philippines continue to maintain diplomatic channels, and neither government has publicly indicated that it wants a direct armed conflict.

The greater danger is miscalculation.

A collision causing deaths, an armed confrontation involving coast guards or naval forces, or an attack serious enough to raise questions about the U.S.-Philippines defence treaty could create political pressure for retaliation.

Once military forces become involved, controlling escalation would become much harder.

Why the Latest War of Words Matters

The argument in Seoul might appear to be simply another diplomatic exchange, but it highlights a much deeper disagreement.

For Manila, the 2016 arbitration award is the legal foundation for defending its maritime rights.

For Beijing, the ruling is illegitimate and cannot determine China’s claims.

Neither side shows any indication of abandoning those positions.

At the same time, encounters at sea have become increasingly physical, while the Philippines is strengthening defence relationships with countries concerned about China’s growing regional power.
That combination makes the dispute harder to contain.

The Bottom Line

The latest China-Philippines war of words demonstrates how firmly both governments remain divided over the South China Sea.

The Philippines insists the 2016 arbitration award is final and binding, while China continues to reject it and maintains its extensive maritime claims.

The immediate dispute is diplomatic.

The larger concern is what happens the next time Chinese and Philippine vessels meet at sea.

With increasingly tense encounters, competing sovereignty claims and a U.S. defence treaty in the background, the South China Sea remains one of the places where a relatively small confrontation could carry consequences far beyond the two countries involved.