Geopolitics › Southeast Asia & Oceania › South China Sea disputes
2016 arbitral ruling (Philippines v. China)
July 12, 2016· Treaty or event
FactTreaties, membership, measured data, events.
A unanimous 2016 award under the UN Law of the Sea treaty finding that China's 'nine-dash line' historic-rights claims have no legal basis.
See it on the Geopolitics map →The picture
In January 2013, after China took control of Scarborough Shoal, the Philippines filed a case under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). China refused to take part. On July 12, 2016 a five-member tribunal, administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, ruled that China had no 'historic rights' within the line, that no Spratly feature is an island entitled to a 200-mile zone, and that China unlawfully blocked Filipino fishing and oil surveys and harmed reefs by island-building.
Why it matters
It is the clearest legal statement on South China Sea claims and underpins the positions of the Philippines, Vietnam, the US and others, though no one can enforce it.
Key facts and numbers
The award and case records published by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, plus China's official rejection statements and its July 2016 white paper.
What to watch
Debated: whether a ruling without enforcement changes behavior; China's island-building and coast guard pressure continued after it.
Connections (2)
▸Philippines won 2016 arbitral ruling (Philippines v. China)Fact
The relationship
Manila brought the case after China seized Scarborough Shoal in a 2012 standoff, betting that law could offset its weak navy. The tribunal sided with it on nearly every point. President Rodrigo Duterte then shelved the win to court Chinese investment; Marcos revived it as the basis of policy.
Since when and why
Filed January 22, 2013 under President Benigno Aquino III; decided July 12, 2016, days after Duterte took office.
How we know
The arbitral award, Philippine foreign ministry statements and yearly anniversary statements by the US, EU, Japan and others.
What to watch
Whether Duterte's shelving cost Manila leverage, and what it gained; much of the Chinese investment he was promised never arrived.
▸2016 arbitral ruling (Philippines v. China) was rejected by China (People's Republic of China)Fact
The relationship
China boycotted the case, arguing the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the dispute was really about sovereignty and boundaries, which China had excluded from compulsory arbitration in 2006. On the day of the award Beijing called it 'null and void' and kept building and patrolling.
Since when and why
Beijing, July 12, 2016: a Foreign Ministry statement, followed by a government white paper the next day.
How we know
China's official statements and white paper, and continued construction documented by satellite imagery after 2016.
What to watch
Disputed: China says dozens of countries back its position; Western tallies count about two dozen governments urging compliance. Most states stay silent.