OUTLINE OF THE PCA ARBITRAL AWARD (JULY 12, 2016)
Case: Republic of the Philippines v. People’s Republic of China
Administered by: Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), The Hague
Reference: PCA Case No. 2013-19
I. Introduction
• Overview of the arbitration
• Jurisdiction under UNCLOS
• Procedural history and China’s non-participation
II. Jurisdiction and Admissibility
• Basis for jurisdiction under Articles 288(1) and 298 of UNCLOS
• Issues excluded under China's Article 298 declaration
• Admissibility of the Philippines’ claims despite China's absence
III. The Philippines’ Submissions and Legal Issues
• Invalidity of the "Nine-Dash Line"
• Legal status of maritime features (rocks, islands, low-tide elevations)
• Entitlements of specific features in the Spratly Islands
• Unlawful Chinese activities in the Philippine EEZ
• Harm to the marine environment
• Aggravation of the dispute by China
IV. Key Findings of the Tribunal
• Nine-Dash Line has no legal basis under UNCLOS
• None of the Spratly features generate an EEZ or continental shelf
• China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights within its EEZ
• China’s island-building and fishing activities violated international law
• Environmental destruction through island construction and clam harvesting
• China's actions aggravated the dispute after the arbitration commenced
V. Legal Basis and International Law Provisions Cited
• UNCLOS Articles 3, 56, 57, 76, 121
• Article 298 (Optional Exceptions)
• Jurisprudence on maritime entitlements
• Environmental law principles under Part XII of UNCLOS
VI. Conclusion and Legal Effect
• Award is final and binding
• Implications for maritime law and regional stability
• Philippines’ legal and diplomatic victory
COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY AND LEGAL ESSAY
The 2016 PCA Arbitral Award in Philippines v. China: A Landmark in Maritime Entitlement Jurisprudence under UNCLOS
I. Introduction
On July 12, 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague issued a landmark award in Republic of the Philippines v. People’s Republic of China, PCA Case No. 2013-19. The Tribunal, constituted under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), rendered a comprehensive ruling on the Philippines’ submissions concerning maritime entitlements and sovereign rights in the South China Sea—specifically within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), referred to domestically as the West Philippine Sea.
Despite China's refusal to participate, the Tribunal proceeded under UNCLOS rules and ultimately issued an award that not only favored the Philippines but also clarified key provisions of international maritime law.
II. Jurisdiction and Legal Framework
The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Article 288(1) of UNCLOS, which empowers tribunals to adjudicate disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention. Although China had made a declaration under Article 298 excluding disputes involving maritime delimitation and military activities, the Tribunal found that the Philippines’ claims did not require delimiting boundaries or assessing sovereignty over land territory, which is beyond the scope of UNCLOS.
The case revolved around the interpretation of maritime entitlements under Articles 56 (rights of coastal states in EEZ), 121 (regime of islands), and 77 (continental shelf rights), as well as environmental obligations under Part XII (Articles 192–194).
III. The Nine-Dash Line and Historic Rights
One of the most significant rulings of the Tribunal was its categorical rejection of the so-called “Nine-Dash Line” claimed by China, which purportedly grants it historic rights to virtually the entire South China Sea.
The Tribunal ruled:
“[T]o the extent that China’s claim to historic rights exceeds the limits of maritime zones provided for by the Convention, such claims are without lawful effect.” (Award, para. 261)
UNCLOS superseded any historic claims not recognized within its framework. Article 56 and Article 57 entitle coastal states to an EEZ of up to 200 nautical miles, within which they have sovereign rights to exploit and manage natural resources. China’s historic rights claim, lacking support in customary international law or UNCLOS, was deemed invalid.
IV. Status of Maritime Features and Maritime Entitlements
Under Article 121 of UNCLOS, the legal status of a maritime feature determines the breadth of maritime zones it can generate. The Tribunal carefully evaluated specific features in the Spratly Islands, such as Mischief Reef, Subi Reef, and Scarborough Shoal.
The Tribunal distinguished:
• Islands (capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life): entitled to a territorial sea, EEZ, and continental shelf.
• Rocks (Article 121(3)): only entitled to a 12-nautical mile territorial sea.
• Low-tide elevations: not entitled to any maritime zone unless within a state’s territorial sea.
Key Ruling:
None of the high-tide features in the Spratlys qualify as islands under Article 121(3). Therefore, no feature generates an EEZ or continental shelf.
V. China’s Violations of the Philippines’ Sovereign Rights
The Tribunal found that several Chinese activities violated the sovereign rights of the Philippines in its EEZ, including:
• Interference with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration.
• Construction of artificial islands on Mischief Reef (a low-tide elevation within the Philippine EEZ).
• Failure to prevent Chinese fishermen from engaging in illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in the Philippines’ EEZ.
These acts contravened Articles 56 and 58 of UNCLOS, which confer on the Philippines exclusive rights to explore and exploit natural resources in its EEZ and continental shelf.
VI. Environmental Obligations and Destruction
The Tribunal found China to be in breach of its environmental obligations under Part XII of UNCLOS—particularly Articles 192 and 194—which require states to protect and preserve the marine environment.
China’s extensive land reclamation and construction activities caused:
• Severe damage to coral reefs
• Destruction of fragile marine habitats
• Irreversible environmental degradation
The Tribunal noted the lack of Environmental Impact Assessments and failure to cooperate with regional states, in violation of UNCLOS obligations.
VII. Aggravation of the Dispute
While the proceedings were ongoing, China took actions that worsened the situation—such as building structures on contested features and escalating patrols. The Tribunal criticized these actions as a violation of the duty to refrain from aggravating disputes, a principle recognized in international jurisprudence, including in the Nicaragua v. United States case (ICJ, 1986).
VIII. Legal Significance and Implications
The PCA award is binding under Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex VII. Although China continues to reject the ruling, it has no legal basis to ignore a decision rendered by an international tribunal constituted under a treaty to which China is a State Party.
Significance:
• Affirmed supremacy of UNCLOS as the "constitution of the oceans"
• Clarified the limits of lawful maritime claims
• Reaffirmed the environmental responsibilities of states
• Upheld the rights of smaller coastal states against unilateral assertions of power
The award is a watershed moment in the development of international maritime law, reinforcing the rule of law in a region fraught with power politics.
IX. Conclusion
The 2016 arbitral award in Philippines v. China under UNCLOS is a historic legal milestone. It vindicated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea and established vital precedents in interpreting maritime entitlements and the environmental duties of states.
Despite China’s continued defiance, the award stands as a testament to the power of international law to uphold justice, protect weaker states, and preserve peace in the world’s oceans.
Cited Legal Authorities:
• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982
• PCA Award, Philippines v. China, PCA Case No. 2013-19 (July 12, 2016)
• ICJ Jurisprudence: Nicaragua v. United States (1986)
• PCA Official Documents and Press Releases."
ChatGPT AI app, June 6, 2025, upon request of Atty. Manuel Laserna Jr.
