I'll answer your question indirectly by using the example of the conflict in the South China Sea. Much has been made of the fact that China responded to a decision by an arbitration tribunal in the South China Sea by saying that it wasn't going to comply with international law, or at least with the view of international law held by a tribunal it considered illegitimate.
Between this extremely strong rhetorical response by Chinese government officials and what happened on the ground, it was observed that China gradually abandoned the idea of presenting its claims in a manner considered to violate international law.
In fact, through the “nine‑dash line” concept, China stopped presenting its claims in a manner that the arbitration tribunal considered to be outside the bounds prescribed by international law. Instead, it has since attempted to align its official international position increasingly with that of international maritime law, at least within the limits of its interpretation of the rules of that law.
So there is one example where China's position on compliance with international maritime law has been much more ambiguous or nuanced than we expected.