U.S. Pacific Command says China has ignored South China Sea court ruling for a decade

The U.S. Pacific Command says China has continued to disregard an international tribunal ruling related to competing claims in the South China Sea for roughly a decade, arguing that Beijing’s actions remain inconsistent with international law, according to a statement carried by The Washington Times on July 14, 2026.

The report says the assessment comes from the U.S. Pacific Command’s legal office, which argued that China’s behavior has stayed in violation of international legal findings since the tribunal issued a decision against what it described as China’s expansive claims to control much of the South China Sea.

The tribunal decision, the report describes, came about 10 years before the U.S. legal office made its assessment public, and it characterized the outcome as an adverse ruling for Beijing. The U.S. command’s position, as summarized by The Washington Times, is that China has not brought its approach into line with the ruling despite the time that has passed.

The South China Sea remains one of the world’s most contested maritime regions, with multiple governments claiming overlapping jurisdiction and with longstanding concerns about enforcement, navigational rights, and the safety of civilian and military vessels. Against that backdrop, the U.S. Pacific Command’s legal characterization is aimed at the question of whether a major claimant is complying with or rejecting international adjudication on maritime boundaries and entitlements.

The Washington Times report frames the U.S. claim in legal terms, stating that China’s continued conduct is “illegally” inconsistent with the tribunal’s ruling. The account does not, in the information provided, lay out specific enforcement incidents or name the tribunal or the particular aspects of the decision that the U.S. says China failed to follow.

In practical terms, the U.S. public legal position adds to international pressure on Beijing to explain how its policy and maritime activity comport with the adjudication. It also indicates that the U.S. view is not limited to freedom-of-navigation assertions, but extends to questions of compliance with binding legal findings.

The Washington Times report indicates that the U.S. legal office’s assessment is being presented in the context of the 10-year mark, underscoring that the issue is not being treated as a short-lived dispute but as a continuing compliance problem tied to the tribunal’s conclusions.