Can International Law Still Restrain Great Powers?
- Written by: The Times
The tenth anniversary of the South China Sea arbitration has revived an important question that extends far beyond the waters between China and Southeast Asia.
Does international law still influence the behaviour of major powers, or has geopolitics overtaken legal principle?
In 2016, an international tribunal established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ruled that China's expansive maritime claims had no legal foundation. The decision was widely welcomed by countries that support a rules-based international order.
China rejected the ruling and has maintained its position ever since.
Ten years later, the tribunal's legal findings remain intact. Yet the strategic landscape tells a more complicated story. Artificial islands have been expanded and fortified, naval and coast guard patrols continue, and regional tensions remain a regular feature of the Indo-Pacific.
The contrast highlights a reality that extends well beyond the South China Sea.
International law rarely possesses its own enforcement mechanism. Courts and tribunals can interpret treaties and establish legal principles, but they cannot deploy ships or aircraft to compel compliance. That responsibility ultimately rests with sovereign nations acting individually or through alliances.
History offers many examples.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine challenged internationally recognised borders despite widespread condemnation. In the Middle East, maritime security in the Red Sea has required naval coalitions to protect commercial shipping. Economic sanctions have become an increasingly common response to disputes that cannot be resolved through diplomacy alone.
None of these examples suggest that international law has failed.
Rather, they demonstrate both its strengths and its limitations.
Legal decisions establish standards against which nations are judged. They shape diplomatic relationships, influence investment decisions and provide smaller countries with a framework through which they can defend their interests. Even when a ruling is ignored, it often continues to influence international opinion and future negotiations.
For Australia, this distinction is particularly significant.
As a nation whose prosperity depends upon global trade, Australia has a strong interest in predictable rules governing shipping, aviation and commerce. Equally, Australia benefits from a regional environment in which disagreements are resolved peacefully rather than through coercion.
That is why Australian governments of different political persuasions have consistently supported the principles of international law while strengthening defence partnerships designed to preserve regional stability.
The challenge facing policymakers is not choosing between diplomacy and security. Both are necessary.
Diplomacy creates opportunities for cooperation. Defence provides reassurance when diplomacy alone proves insufficient.
The South China Sea illustrates this balance perhaps more clearly than any other contemporary dispute. Trade continues. Diplomatic engagement continues. Military preparedness also continues.
Those realities are not contradictory. They are the practical consequences of living in a world where economic interdependence and strategic competition increasingly exist side by side.
Ten years after the landmark ruling, the question is no longer whether international law matters.
It clearly does.
The more important question is whether nations remain willing to defend the principles they have collectively agreed should govern international relations.
For Australia, that debate is unlikely to fade. As the Indo-Pacific becomes more strategically significant, maintaining both a prosperous trading economy and a stable regional security environment will remain one of the country's defining policy challenges.
Perhaps that is the enduring lesson of the South China Sea. International law provides the map, but it is the choices made by nations that determine the course.
