Philippines v China

Philippines v China (also called the South China Sea Arbitration) was an arbitration initiated by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China in January 2013 under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The tribunal was constituted under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, with five arbitrators.

On 12 July 2016, the tribunal issued its award. Its key findings included:

• China's claim to "historic rights" within the so-called nine-dash line had no legal basis under UNCLOS, which superseded any such pre-existing claims when both states ratified the Convention.
• None of the features in the Spratly Islands, including Itu Aba (Taiping), qualified as "islands" capable of generating an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf under Article 121(3); they were either rocks or low-tide elevations.
• Scarborough Shoal is a rock, and China had unlawfully interfered with traditional Philippine fishing rights there.
• China had violated its obligations to protect the marine environment through large-scale island-building and harvesting of endangered species at several reefs, including Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal.
• China's land reclamation and construction activities had aggravated the dispute during the proceedings.

China refused to participate, rejected the tribunal's jurisdiction, and declared the award "null and void." Despite Beijing's non-compliance, the ruling is legally binding on the parties under Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex VII.

The case is frequently cited by other claimants—Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia—and by third states such as the United States, Japan, Australia, and EU members to challenge Chinese maritime assertions. Under President Rodrigo Duterte (2016–2022), Manila initially de-emphasized the award, but the Marcos Jr. administration has more actively invoked it, particularly amid clashes around Second Thomas Shoal involving the BRP Sierra Madre.