OVERVIEW ON THE 2016 ARBITRAL AWARD
A Decade of Law, Not Force:
Upholding Maritime Rights Through Peaceful Means
Ten years ago, the Philippines took an unprecedented, principled and peaceful step: we submitted a complex maritime dispute to an international arbitral tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—a framework to which 171 States have freely joined.
The outcome was unequivocal. The arbitral award clearly affirmed our position under international law and stands as a meaningful example of principled, rules-based dispute resolution.
This achievement belongs to all Filipinos, including the generations of fisherfolk who have relied in the West Philippine Sea for their livelihood. While challenges have persisted over the past decade, they have neither diminished our commitment nor our resolve. We chose law over force, and we continue to hold the line together, as a nation, without fear.
Today, we remain guided by law, dialogue, and mutual respect. As a nation, we stand together—calm, steadfast, and confident—in upholding our rights while contributing to a peaceful and stable region
The Decision: Key Findings of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The 2016 Arbitral Award delivers a comprehensive and authoritative clarification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as applied to the South China Sea. Addressing fundamental questions, the award not only resolved specific issues presented in the case but also reinforced the primacy of UNCLOS as the governing framework for maritime rights and obligations. The key determinations of the Tribunal, as explained in the award, thus provide essential guidance for the consistent and lawful management of maritime spaces, with implications extending well beyond the immediate parties to the dispute.
On the Nine-Dash Line
- The Tribunal ruled that China’s claims to historic rights within the so-called nine-dash line are contrary to UNCLOS and do not have legal effect.
- It also ruled that any prior historic rights claimed by China were superseded or extinguished when China ratified the Convention.
- It further found that China actually has no historic rights over the waters enclosed by the nine-dash line.
On Maritime Features
- The Tribunal concluded that Scarbrough Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc) and the high-tide features of the Spratly Islands (Kalayaan Island Group) are not entitled to an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or continental shelf. Hence, there are no overlapping EEZs and continental shelves between China and the Philippines with respect to these features.
- It also determined that Mischief Reef (Panganiban Reef) and Second Thomas Shoal (Ayungin Shoal) are low-tide elevations located within the Philippines’ EEZ and continental shelf. Therefore, they form part of the EEZ and continental shelf of the Philippines.
On Unlawful Conduct
- The Tribunal ruled that China violated Philippine sovereign rights by interfering with fishing and petroleum exploration activities and undertaking unauthorized land reclamation and construction of artificial islands.
- It also ruled that China violated the traditional fishing rights of Filipino fisherfolk by prohibiting their access to Scarborough Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc) since 2012.
- It further ruled that certain actions of Chinese vessels in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc) created serious risks of collision, contrary to the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs).
On Environmental Destruction
- The Tribunal found that China’s large-scale land reclamation and artificial-island building at seven maritime features caused severe, long-lasting and devastating damage to fragile coral reef ecosystems, and that it sanctioned or tolerated the harvesting of endangered species by Chinese fishing vessels.
- These actions were determined to be in violation of China’s environmental obligations under UNCLOS.
The Award is final and not subject to appeal pursuant to Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex VII.
China’s decision not to participate does not detract from the Award’s legal validity or binding character.
As a matter of settled international law, the effectiveness of a judgment is not diminished by a party’s refusal to comply.
Memorial of the Philippines, Volume 1, 30 March 2014
Supplemental Written Submission of the Philippines, 16 March 2015
Memorial of the Philippines, Volume 2, 30 March 2014
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume III (Annexes 1-60), 30 March 2014
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume IV (Annexes 61-102), 30 March 2014
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume V (Annexes 103-157), 30 March 2014
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VI (Annexes 158-221), 30 March 2014
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VII (Annexes 222-255), 30 March 2014
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VIII (Annexes 256-275), 30 March 2014
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume IX (Annexes 276-306), 30 March 2014
Volume II_Supplemental Written Submission of the Philippines, 16 March 2015
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume X (Annexes 307-343), 30 March 2014
The Philippines’ Supplemental Written Submission – Volume III (Annexes 344-385), 16 March 2015
The Philippines’ Supplemental Written Submission – Volume IV (Annexes 386-442), 16 March 2015
The Philippines’ Supplemental Written Submission – Volume V (Annexes 443-465), 16 March 2015
Volume VI_Supplemental Written Submission of the Philippines, 16 March 2015
Volume VII_Supplemental Written Submission of the Philippines, 16 March 2015
The Philippines’ Supplemental Written Submission – Volume VIII (Annexes 466-499), 16 March 2015
The Philippines’ Supplemental Written Submission – Volume IX (Annexes 500-521), 16 March 2015
The Philippines’ Supplemental Written Submission – Volume X (Annexes 522-542), 16 March 2015
The Philippines’ Supplemental Written Submission – Volume XI (Annexes 543-573), 16 March 2015
Annexes cited during Hearing on Jurisdiction (Annexes 574-583)
The Philippines’ Written Responses to the Tribunal’s 13 July 2015 Questions – Volume II (Annexes 584-606), 23 July 2015
The Philippines’ Supplemental Documents – Volume I (Annexes 607-667), 19 November 2015
The Philippines’ Supplemental Documents – Volume II (Annexes 608-709), 19 November 2015
The Philippines’ Supplemental Documents – Volume III (Annexes 710-756), 19 November 2015
The Philippines’ Supplemental Documents – Volume IV (Annexes 757-806), 19 November 2015
The Philippines’ Supplemental Documents – Volume V (Annexes 807-819), 19 November 2015
The Philippines’ Annexes cited during Merits Hearing (Annexes 820-859)
The Philippines’ Written Responses to the Tribunal’s November 2015 Question (Annexes 860-863)
Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 29 October 2015
Award, 12 July 2016
Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (unofficial Mandarin Chinese translation), 29 October 2015
Award (unofficial Mandarin Chinese translation), 12 July 2016
The Shared Responsibility: Upholding a Rules-Based Maritime Order
The 2016 Arbitral Award is not merely a bilateral ruling between the Philippines and China. It constitutes the most authoritative interpretation of UNCLOS on key issues, including historic rights, the legal status of maritime features, and the maritime rights and duties of States. As such, its reasoning and principles carry broader relevance and are instructive for the international community.
Every State that relies on freedom of navigation and overflight, the benefits and security of exclusive economic zones, and the integrity of UNCLOS has a stake in the faithful observance and enforcement of this Award.
Upholding it is a shared responsibility in ensuring peace, stability, and the rule of law at sea. The Philippines therefore appeals not to generosity, but to a common commitment to sustain a rules-based maritime order on which all nations depend.