a ruling. Since the tribunal, the legal legitimacy that backs the Philippines’ position has slowly waned to the ever-increasing reality of Chinese militarization. China’s advance continues amidst U.S. countermeasures such as FONOPs, and although the Chinese claim may not hold legal integrity, China’s influence in the region has allowed it to largely overlook the tribunal’s ruling.

From a diplomatic perspective, attempts to call China to follow the ruling have failed, largely discrediting international law. Other possible diplomatic attempts to impose the tribunal ruling (or parts of it) could come through the warming of relations and the building of a multilateral framework between China and ASEAN. Many ASEAN countries in the region a hope to establish a set of rules that are “legally binding, meaningful, effective and consistent with international law” (Reuters 2017). This would ensure the stability of the region and the prevent escalating conflict. Observing nations place their hope in the long awaited SCS Code of Conduct that China and ten ASEAN members are trying to negotiate. Initially signed in 2002, the ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), has yet to be fully implemented (YingHui 2017). Slow progress on resolving the disputes has given way to some agreement, with leaders from all sides agreeing to a framework for the Code of Conduct (COC) in May 2017. The framework outlines what China and ASEAN call ‘consultations’ on the issue, allowing both parties meet to negotiate an agreement. This ongoing commitment shows that all sides have a desire to find a resolution thereby significantly reducing the risk of military clashes, but many are sceptical of China’s position in the negotiations, saying that it simply wants to buy time to consolidate its military power. Despite calls from several ASEAN countries to ensure that the COC is legally binding, enforceable, and provides a dispute resolution mechanism, many accuse China of using its hefty influence to shape the agreement in its favour. Australia, Japan and the U.S., all of whom advocate for a legally binding resolution, have expressed str