In July 2016, an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex 7 to UNLOS, rendered a unanimous award in favor of the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China concerning maritime entitlements in the South China Sea. This is a historical pronouncement in a number of respects which we will explore together. This award also provides a fitting opportunity to discuss what can be expected of arbitration in settling politically charged disputes regarding the law of the sea. In this video, I'll give you a brief overview of the case. Then we will address the significant features of the award and criticism of it. So, let's get started. The case concerned the parties maritime entitlements in the South China Sea. This is an important point because the dispute between the Philippines and China was actually much broader than that, and encompass questions of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. The tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine claims concerning rights to land such as islands in the South China Sea. It could only settle the issue of China's alleged historic rights in the South China Sea and the lawfulness of certain Chinese activities in the area. China claimed rights to the living and non-living resources of the oceans within the so-called nine-dash line, which you can see here. This line appears in Chinese maps but extends beyond the limits of China's EEZ and continental shelf under UNCLOS. In a nutshell, the tribunal found that China's claim was incompatible with the convention. Therefore, China's activities in the area such as the construction of artificial islands, the operation of maritime surveillance vessels, and fishing activities were unlawful. The tribunal also found that China with its fishing practices, its land reclamation activities, and the construction of artificial islands had caused severe harm to the marine environment. Let me now turn to some of the significant features of the award. The tribunal set a clear standard to define when a maritime feature can be considered an island which generates an entitlement to maritime zones beyond the territorial sea. In contrast to islands, rocks cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own and only generate an entitlement to a territorial sea but no EEZ or continental shelf. Significantly, the tribunal held that the status of a feature has to be determined on the basis of its natural capacity to sustain human habitation or economic life. The important point here is that human intervention doesn't change the status of a feature. Here, you can see an example of China's land reclamation activities on coral reefs which are low tide elevations to form artificial islands. The tribunal held that these activities did not and could not turn low tide elevations into islands proper. This is an example of the role arbitral tribunals can play in developing or clarifying the law of the sea. Although the award is only binding on the parties, it has implications for a number of other states in the South China Sea and beyond including, for instance, the United States. Procedurally, China failed to appear and participate in the proceedings claiming that the Philippines had agreed to resolve maritime disputes in the South China Sea solely through bilateral negotiations. Thus, the tribunal examined the possible objections to jurisdiction before addressing the merits of the Philippines' claims. Let me highlight some of the key points here. First, in 2006, China made a declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS to exclude disputes concerning maritime delimitation from compulsory settlement. You can pause the video and take a moment to read the provision before continuing watching. This is why the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine any claims to sovereignty over maritime fishers in the South China Sea or to delimit any maritime boundary. However, the tribunal held that disputes concerning the status of maritime features and the existence of entitlements to maritime zones are distinct from those concerning delimitation. Therefore, China's decoration didn't deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction entirely. Second, the award clarified the scope of the optional exception in Article 298 1A of the convention in relation to historic titles. It differentiated between historic rights as the ones claimed by China, and historic titles as specified in the convention. Finally, the tribunal asserted its jurisdiction even if China argued that jurisdiction was excluded on the basis of Article 281 of UNCLOS because the parties had agreed to other means of settlement which implicitly excluded recourse to arbitration. Unlike the tribunal in southern bluefin tuna, this tribunal held that article 281 requires some clear statement of exclusion of further procedures. In absent, this explicit exclusion, like in the case at hand, the procedures in Part 15 apply including compulsory arbitration. Some scholars criticize the award for its alleged one-sided perspective in favor of the Philippines and its failure to take proper cognizance of China's position. Commentators critiqued the composition of the tribunal and its assertion of jurisdiction over the dispute. In particular, the tribunal was criticized for disentangling the question of maritime entitlements from the question of maritime delimitations without much reasoning. The word was also exposed to criticism for broadening the scope of compulsory jurisdiction on their UNCLOS through its interpretation of Article 281 of the convention. The award demonstrates that a hotly contested dispute can be settled in accordance with international law, but it also shows the limits of what arbitration can achieve based on the tribunal's jurisdiction. When the award was rendered, China and I quote, "Solemnly declare that the award is null and void." This statement brings us to the question of enforcement. As you know, an arbitral award is binding on the parties but there is no mechanism for insurance compliance with Annex 7 arbitral awards. You will hear more on this from Professor Debra Bundaire during the final module of this course. At this point, it remains to be seen whether the award will have a cooling effect on regional tensions in the South China Sea. It is hoped that it will help the parties reconcile their claims rather than drive them further apart. This is all on my end. I hope you enjoy the rest of the course.