View source for South China Sea Arbitration

{{Short description|2013–2016 international arbitration case}}
{{Use Philippine English|date=March 2021}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2020}}
{{Infobox court case
| name = The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China
| CourtSeal = File:Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration_-_Cour_permanente_d%27arbitrage.svg
| court = An [[arbitral tribunal]] constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 [[United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea]] (UNCLOS)<!-- The PCA is distinct from the temporary Arbitral Tribunal but was employed to provide the venue and secretarial assistance to the Tribunal. -->
| imagesize = 150px
| caption = Registered with the [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]]
| full name = An Arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China
| date decided = 12 July 2016
| citations = [[Permanent Court of Arbitration|PCA]] Case No. 2013-19
| transcripts = https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
| judges = '''Presiding Arbitrator:'''<br />[[Thomas Mensah (lawyer)|Thomas A. Mensah]]<br />
'''Members:'''<br />[[Jean-Pierre Cot]]<br />[[Rüdiger Wolfrum]]<br />Alfred H. Soons<br />[[Stanisław Pawlak]]
| number of judges = 5
| Ruling = *China's historic rights claims over maritime areas inside the "nine-dash line" have no lawful effect if they exceed what is entitled to under UNCLOS
*There was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within "nine-dash line"
*UNCLOS does not provide for a group of islands such as the Spratly Islands to generate maritime zones collectively as a unit
*China had breached its obligations under the convention on the [[International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea]] and Article 94 of UNCLOS concerning maritime safety
*China violated its obligations to refrain from aggravating or extending the parties disputes during the pendency of the settlement process
| decision by = 
| prior actions = 
| appealed from = 
| appealed to = 
| subsequent actions = 
| related actions = 
| keywords = <!-- {{flatlist|}} -->
| italic title = no
}}

The '''South China Sea Arbitration''' (Philippines v. China, [[Permanent Court of Arbitration|PCA]] case number 2013–19)<ref name="PCAcase">{{cite web|url=https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/|title=The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China)|access-date=25 December 2020|archive-date=23 December 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201223192935/https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/|url-status=live}}</ref> was an arbitration case brought by the [[Philippines|Republic of the Philippines]] against the [[China|People's Republic of China]] (PRC) under Annex VII (subject to Part XV) of the [[United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea]] (UNCLOS, ratified by the Philippines in 1984, by the PRC in 1996, opted out from Section 2 of Part XV by China in 2006<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.itlos.org/en/main/jurisdiction/declarations-of-states-parties/declarations-made-by-states-parties-under-article-298/#:~:text=The%20Government%20of%20the%20People's%20Republic%20of%20China%20does%20not,Article%20298%20of%20the%20Convention|title=Declarations made by States Parties under article 298|publisher=ITLOS|date=n.d.|accessdate=August 26, 2024 |quote=China {{!}} The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.}}</ref>) concerning certain issues in the [[South China Sea]], including the [[nine-dash line]] introduced by the mainland-based [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republic of China]] since as early as 1947.<ref>{{Cite book |title = Solving Disputes for Regional Cooperation and Development in the South China Sea: A Chinese Perspective |last = Wu |first = Shicun |isbn = 978-1780633558 |series = Chandos Asian Studies Series |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=zc5ZAgAAQBAJ |year = 2013 |publisher = Elsevier Reed |page = 79 "History of the U-shaped line" |access-date = 13 February 2021 |archive-date = 7 April 2023 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230407015817/https://books.google.com/books?id=zc5ZAgAAQBAJ |url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="UNCLOSratify">{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm |title=Chronological lists of ratifications of, accessions and successions to the Convention and the related Agreements |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=September 3, 2020 |website=United Nations |publisher=Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations. |access-date=February 12, 2021 |archive-date=14 April 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090414043900/http://www.un.org/depts/los/reference_files/chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="pr7">{{Cite web |url = https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1503 |title = Seventh Press Release 29102015 |publisher = Permanent Court of Arbitration |date = 29 October 2015 |language = en |access-date = 30 January 2022 |archive-date = 10 March 2022 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220310225550/https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1503 |url-status = live }}</ref> A tribunal of arbitrators appointed the [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]] (PCA) as the registry for the proceedings.<ref name="pr1">{{Cite web |url = https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/227 |title = First Press Release |publisher = Permanent Court of Arbitration |date = 27 August 2013 |language = en |access-date = 30 January 2022 |archive-date = 10 March 2022 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220310231111/https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/227 |url-status = live }}</ref>

On 19 February 2013, China declared that it would not participate in the arbitration.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165478-phl-prc-china-note-verbale.html |title = PHL PRC China Note Verbale |access-date = 27 August 2016 |archive-date = 19 September 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160919051036/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165478-phl-prc-china-note-verbale.html |url-status = live }}</ref> On 7 December 2014, it published a [[white paper]] to elaborate its position that, among other points, the tribunal lacks [[jurisdiction]].<ref name="csil">{{cite report |author = Chinese Society of International Law |title = The Tribunal's Award in the "South China Sea Arbitration" Initiated by the Philippines Is Null and Void |url = http://www.csil.cn/News/Detail.aspx?AId=201 |access-date = 12 June 2016 |archive-date = 22 August 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160822045942/http://www.csil.cn/News/Detail.aspx?AId=201 |url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="position">{{cite report |author = Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China |title = Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines |url = http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1217147.shtml |access-date = 12 June 2016 |archive-date = 7 June 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160607195634/http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1217147.shtml |url-status = live }}</ref> In accordance with Article 3 of Annex VII of UNCLOS, the Philippines appointed 1 of the 5 arbitrators, while China did not appoint any.{{refn|PCA Award, Section II(B), p. 12.<ref name="PCA Award" />}} On 29 October 2015, the [[arbitral tribunal|tribunal]] concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider seven of the Philippines' submissions, subject to certain conditions, and postponed the consideration of its jurisdiction on the other eight submissions to the merits phase.{{refn|PCA Award, Section IV(B)(6), p. 63.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}<ref name="APstory1">{{cite news |year = 2015 |url = http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/07/08/1474798/philippines-asks-tribunal-invalidate-chinas-sea-claims |title = Philippines asks tribunal to invalidate China's sea claims |work=The Philippine Star|agency = Associated Press |access-date = 17 July 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20161012212055/http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/07/08/1474798/philippines-asks-tribunal-invalidate-chinas-sea-claims |archive-date = 12 October 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="auto">{{cite news |url = https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/748180/world-tribunal-to-hear-south-china-sea-case |title = World tribunal to hear South China Sea case |date = 30 October 2015 |newspaper = Bangkok Post |access-date = 3 August 2022 |archive-date = 7 April 2023 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230407015804/https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/748180/world-tribunal-to-hear-south-china-sea-case |url-status = live }}</ref>

On 12 July 2016, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines on most of its submissions. It clarified that while it would not "rule on any question of sovereignty ... and would not delimit any maritime boundary", China's historic rights claims over maritime areas (as opposed to land masses and territorial waters) within the "nine-dash line" have no lawful effect unless entitled to under UNCLOS.{{refn|PCA Award, Section V(F)(d)(264, 266, 267), p. 113.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}{{refn|PCA Award, Section V(F)(d)(278), p. 117.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}<ref name="pr11">{{cite web |url = https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1801 |title = Eleventh Press Release 12072016 (English) |publisher = Permanent Court of Arbitration |date = 7 December 2016 |access-date = 30 January 2022 |archive-date = 20 January 2022 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220120114023/http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1801 |url-status = live }}</ref><ref name=":2">{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html |title = Tribunal Rejects Beijing's Claims in South China Sea |last = Perlez |first = Jane |date = 12 July 2016 |newspaper = The New York Times |issn = 0362-4331 |access-date = 12 July 2016 |archive-date = 13 July 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160713064120/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html |url-status = live }}</ref> China has rejected the ruling, as has [[Taiwan]].<ref name="Phillips">{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china |title=Beijing rejects tribunal's ruling in South China Sea case |author1=Phillips, Tom |author2=Holmes, Oliver |author3=Bowcott, Owen |work=The Guardian |date=12 July 2016 |access-date=26 July 2016 |archive-date=12 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160712220441/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/07/taiwan-rejects-ruling-on-south-china-sea-with-taiping-island-defined-as-rocks/ |title = Taiwan rejects ruling on South China Sea with Taiping Island defined as 'rocks' |last = Zannia |first = Neyla |publisher = The Online Citizen |access-date = 26 July 2016 |date = 14 July 2016 |archive-date = 15 July 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160715145720/http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/07/taiwan-rejects-ruling-on-south-china-sea-with-taiping-island-defined-as-rocks/ |url-status = dead }}</ref> {{As of|November 2023}}, 26 governments support the ruling, 17 issued generally positive statements noting the ruling but not called for compliance, and eight rejected it.<ref name=AMTI2023>{{Cite web |url=https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-support-tracker/ |title=Arbitration Support Tracker {{!}} Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative |publisher=Center for Strategic and International Studies |access-date=25 August 2024 |url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240715042422/https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-support-tracker/|archive-date=15 July 2024}}</ref> The [[United Nations]] does not hold any position on the case or on the disputed claims.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/db160712.doc.htm |title=Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=12 July 2016 |website=United Nations |access-date=27 October 2020 |archive-date=12 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112040340/https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/db160712.doc.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

== Background ==
[[File:South China Sea claims map.svg|thumb|300px|[[Territorial disputes in the South China Sea|Territorial claims]] in the [[South China Sea]]]]
{{Main|Territorial disputes in the South China Sea}}
{{See also|Nine-dash line}}
Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China were invited to the treaty negotiations after [[Japan]] renounced all claims to the [[Spratly Islands]] and other conquered islands and territories in the [[Treaty of San Francisco]], and the treaty did not designate successor states.<ref name="taiwandocuments.org">{{cite web |year = 2013 |url = http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm |title = Treaty of Peace with Japan |publisher = Taiwan Documents Project |access-date = 19 November 2013 |archive-date = 8 February 2006 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060208080155/http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm |url-status = live }} See also: United Nations Treaty Series 1952 (reg. no. 1832), vol. 136, pp. 45–164.</ref> On 15 August 1951, in reaction to China's exclusion from the talks, the PRC government issued the ''Declaration on the Draft Peace Treaty with Japan by the US and the UK and on the San Francisco Conference'' by the then Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai, protesting the absence of any provisions in the draft on who shall take over the South China Sea islands. It reasserted China's sovereignty over the archipelagos in the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands, and reiterated that "the Chinese government of the day had taken over those islands" and that the PRC's rightful sovereignty "shall remain intact".<ref name=fuying>{{cite news|url=http://nationalinterest.org/feature/south-china-sea-how-we-got-stage-16118|title=South China Sea: How We Got to This Stage|year=2016|last1=Ying|first1=Fu|last2=Wu|first2=Shicun|access-date=7 June 2016|archive-date=16 June 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160616162241/http://nationalinterest.org/feature/south-china-sea-how-we-got-stage-16118|url-status=live}}</ref>

On 28 April 1952, the United States presided over the signing of the [[Treaty of Taipei|Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China]]. Article 2 of the document provided that "It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and [[Penghu]] (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands."<ref name=fuying/>

The [[Philippines]] bases its claim on its geographical proximity to the Spratly Islands.<ref name = "BBC" />
	
In May 1956, the dispute escalated after [[Filipino people|Filipino national]] [[Tomas Cloma]] and his followers settled on the islands and declared the territory as "Freedomland", now known as [[Kalayaan, Palawan|Kalayaan]] for himself and later requested to make the territory a protectorate of the Philippines. Tomas Cloma even stole China (ROC)'s national flag from the Taiping Island. In July 1956, he apologised officially for his act and he surrendered the flag he stole to China's embassy in Manila. On 2 October 1956, he wrote a letter and ensured he would not make further training voyages or landings in the territorial waters of China (ROC).<ref name=kuen>{{cite video |last=Fu |first=Kuen-Chen |title=South China Sea: Conflict Or Cooperation? |date=11 March 2016 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMBLEjg86pw |access-date=7 June 2016 |archive-date=17 March 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200317083012/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMBLEjg86pw&gl=US&hl=en |url-status=live }}{{time needed|date=July 2016}}{{Unreliable source?|reason=Video without evidence produced by reputable source, was cited as book source inaccurately|date=August 2024}}</ref>
	
Philippine troops were sent to three of the islands in 1968, when the Philippines were under President [[Ferdinand Marcos]]. In the 1970s, some countries began to occupy islands and reefs in the Spratlys. The Spratlys were placed under the jurisdiction of the province of Palawan in 1978.

The PRC claims it is entitled to the Paracel and Spratly Islands because they were allegedly seen as integral parts of China under the [[Ming dynasty]].<ref name="BBC"/> The PRC and the Republic of China (ROC, or Taiwan) have these same territorial claims.<ref name ="BBC">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349|title=Q&A: South China Sea dispute|work=[[BBC]] News|date=15 May 2013|access-date=19 November 2013|archive-date=17 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017162612/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349|url-status=live}}</ref> The latter has controlled the largest island – [[Taiping Island]] – in the group since 1946.

[[Vietnam]] states that the islands have belonged to it since the 17th century, using historical documents of ownership as evidence.<ref name = "BBC" /> [[Hanoi]] began to occupy the westernmost islands during this period.<ref name = "BBC" />

In the early 1970s, [[Malaysia]] joined the dispute by claiming the islands nearest to it.{{sfn|Valencia|Van Dyke|Ludwig|1999|pp=[https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=gqOKE2aI5roC&pg=PA36 36-38]}}

[[Brunei]] also claims [[Louisa Reef]] and [[DK1 rigs@Rifleman Bank (Vietnamese: Bãi Phúc Tần)|Rifleman Bank]], although some sources consider that claim to be weak.{{sfn|Valencia|Van Dyke|Ludwig|1999|p=[https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=gqOKE2aI5roC&pg=PA38 38]}}

==Participants==
The arbitration case involved the Philippines and China but only the Philippines participated in the arbitration.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|pages=126-127}}

{{Multiple image
| align = 
| direction = 
| total_width = 400
| image1 = Carta Hydrographica y Chorographica de las Yslas Filipinas Dedicada al Rey Nuestro Señor por el Mariscal d. Campo D. Fernando Valdes Tamon Cavallº del Orden de Santiago de Govor. Y Capn.jpg
| caption1 = 1734 [[Velarde map|Carta Hydrographica y Chorographica de las Islas Filipinas]]
| image2 = 1947 Nanhai Zhudao.png
| caption2 = China's then [[nine-dash line|eleven-dash line]] map of the South China Sea, circa 1947
}}

===Optional exceptions to applicability of compulsory procedure===
Article 298 of Section 3 of Part XV of the Convention provides optional exceptions to the applicability of compulsory procedures provided in Section 2. China made a declaration in 2006 in accordance with this provision of the Convention purporting not to accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV of the convention. Many countries including the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, France, Canada, and Spain had made similar declarations to reject any of the procedures provided for in sections 2 of Part XV of the convention with respect to the different categories of disputes.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm|title=Declarations or Statements upon UNCLOS ratification|access-date=29 June 2017|archive-date=6 February 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130206162003/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> However, the Tribunal held that this dispute did not fall within the exceptions provided in Article 298, and was therefore admissible.<ref name=pr11 />

=== Philippine stance===
The Philippine's decision to initiate the arbitration was prompted by the 2012 Scarborough Shoal fishing dispute and [[Scarborough Shoal standoff|the standoff]] that resulted during the dispute.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=121}}

In the arbitration, the Philippines contended that the "nine-dotted line" claim by China is invalid because it violates the UNCLOS agreements about [[exclusive economic zone]]s and [[territorial sea]]s.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7 |title = The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China |publisher = [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]] |access-date = 24 October 2013 |archive-date = 20 August 2018 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180820040740/http://pcacases.com/web/view/7 |url-status = live }}</ref> Its position was that because most of the features in the South China Sea, such as most of the Spratly Islands, cannot sustain life, they cannot be given their own [[continental shelf]] as defined in the convention.<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/305570/news/nation/itlos-completes-five-man-tribunal-that-will-hear-phl-case-vs-china |title = ITLOS completes five-man tribunal that will hear PHL case vs. China |first = Michaela |last = Del Cappar |work = GMA News One |date = 25 April 2013 |access-date = 24 October 2013 |archive-date = 30 October 2015 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151030232948/http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/305570/news/nation/itlos-completes-five-man-tribunal-that-will-hear-phl-case-vs-china |url-status = live }}</ref>

In framing its contentions, the Philippines' "submissions scrupulously avoided treading on questions of territorial sovereignty and boundary delimitation, which would fall outside the tribunal's" jurisdiction.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kardon |first=Isaac B. |date=2018 |title=China Can Say "No": Analyzing China's Rejection of the South China Sea Arbitration |journal=University of Pennsylvania Asia Law Review}}</ref>{{Rp|pages=3-4}}

* '''Agent:''' [[Office of the Solicitor General of the Philippines]]
* '''Counsel and Advocates''' 
** Paul S. Reichler, Lawrence H. Martin and Andrew B. Loewenstein of [[Foley Hoag]]
** Professor Bernard H. Oxman of [[University of Miami School of Law]]
** Professor Philippe Sands QC of [[Matrix Chambers]]
** Professor Alan Boyle of [[Essex Court Chambers]]

===  Chinese stance ===
The Philippines' initiation of the arbitration was followed by extensive internal debates among Chinese policymakers about whether China should participate in the arbitration.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|pages=126-127}} Participating and losing could impact domestic sentiment and might have regional implications for China's other maritime territorial claims.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=127}} The nine-dash line predated UNCLOS, and its lack of defined coordinates was a weakness under current international law.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=127}} Chinese policymakers had previously sought to preserve the ambiguity of its status in an effort to preserve the status quo and manage its claims and relations with neighbors.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=127}} Policymakers were also reticent because of concerns that the proceedings would not be fair, citing the fact that the president of ITLOS, [[Shunji Yanai]], was Japanese.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=127}} Some policymakers also were concerned about the procedure given that China had no precedent for using arbitration to resolve territorial disagreements.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=127}} Others favored participation in order to be able to shape the proceedings, including because only by participating would China have the ability to appoint an arbitrator to the panel.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=127}}

China declined to participate in the arbitration and stated that it would not accept any arbitration result.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=122}} As part of its grounds for nonparticipation and nonacceptance, China cited the fact that China is a signatory to the 2006 UNCLOS exclusion clause which removes sovereignty and boundary delimitations issues from arbitration procedures.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=|pages=123-124}}

China stated that several treaties with the Philippines stipulate that bilateral negotiations be used to resolve border disputes and that the Philippines of violating the 2002 [[ASEAN]]-China voluntary Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, which also stipulated bilateral negotiations as the means of resolving border and other disputes.<ref>{{cite news |last=Torode |first=Greg |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-philippines-idUSBRE98Q0BX20130927 |title=Philippines South China Sea legal case against China gathers pace |publisher=Reuters |date=27 September 2013 |access-date=24 October 2013 |archive-date=15 February 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160215185327/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-philippines-idUSBRE98Q0BX20130927 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20130719/104385.shtml |title=China rejects arbitration on disputed islands in S.China Sea CCTV News – CNTV English |access-date=24 October 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029192055/http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20130719/104385.shtml |archive-date=29 October 2013 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.asean.org/?static_post=declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-china-sea |title = DECLARATION ON THE CONDUCT OF PARTIES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA |publisher = [[Association of Southeast Asian Nations]] |date = 14 May 2012 |access-date = 14 February 2016 |archive-date = 22 February 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160222162505/http://www.asean.org/?static_post=declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-china-sea |url-status = live }}</ref> According to this view, the Philippines had breached the parties' mutual agreements by beginning the arbitration unilaterally.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=122}} 

China described the proceedings as undermining regional stability and said that the Philippines was manipulating international law to damage China's territorial claims.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=122}} The arbitration did have jurisdiction over sovereignty matters; China contended that the Philippines claims were in fact sovereignty arguments by another name.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=122}} 

China's December 2014 white paper ("On the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines")<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=123}} focused on the contention that the dispute was not subject to arbitration because it was ultimately a matter of sovereignty, not exploitation rights.<ref>Ben Blanchard (24 July 2015),[https://www.reuters.com/article/southchinasea-china-usa-idUSL3N1043AM20150724 China also says U.S. is trying to influence Philippines' sea case] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831203533/http://www.reuters.com/article/southchinasea-china-usa-idUSL3N1043AM20150724 |date=31 August 2021 }} Reuters.</ref> China also cited its signing of the 2006 UNCLOS arbitration exclusion for sovereignty and boundary limitations disputes.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|pages=122-123}}

== Claimants of South China Sea islands ==
=== Taiwanese stance ===
[[Taiwan]], officially the Republic of China, stated that the South China Sea islands were first discovered, named, and used by [[Chinese people]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement on the South China Sea |url=https://en.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1EADDCFD4C6EC567&s=EDEBCA08C7F51C98 |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) |language=en |date=18 March 2022 |access-date=29 October 2023 |archive-date=29 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231029174947/https://en.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1EADDCFD4C6EC567&s=EDEBCA08C7F51C98 |url-status=live }}</ref> It currently administers [[Taiping Island]] or Itu Aba, the largest of the [[Spratly Islands]], but was neither consulted nor invited to the arbitration. Taipei argues that Taiping can sustain human habitation with its freshwater wells and produce, and is thus an island under UNCLOS. It had invited the Philippines and five arbitrators to visit Taiping; the Philippines rejected the invitation, and there was no response from the arbitrators.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/intl-community/2016/05/14/466118/Philippines-rejects.htm |title = Philippines rejects invitation to Taiping: Foreign Ministry |access-date = 10 June 2016 |archive-date = 30 August 2017 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170830145125/http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/intl-community/2016/05/14/466118/philippines-rejects.htm |url-status = live }}</ref> According to Ian Storey, a regional expert at the [[ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute]], for decades, the common understanding among scholars was that "Itu Aba is the only island in the Spratlys".<ref>{{cite news |title=On South China Sea islet, Taiwan argues Philippines case is far from watertight |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-taiwan/on-south-china-sea-islet-taiwan-argues-philippines-case-is-far-from-watertight-idUSKCN0WP0IH |work=Reuters |date=23 March 2016 |language=en |access-date=29 October 2023 |archive-date=29 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231029174946/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-taiwan/on-south-china-sea-islet-taiwan-argues-philippines-case-is-far-from-watertight-idUSKCN0WP0IH |url-status=live }}</ref> After the tribunal downgraded Itu Aba to a rock, Taiwan rejected the ruling, saying it is "not legally binding on the ROC". It pointed out that the status of Itu Aba was not a point of contention raised by the Philippines, who had brought the case, but was opened up by the tribunal on its own initiative.<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.mb.com.ph/ph-leaves-taiping-island-issue-to-un/ |title = PH leaves 'Taiping Island' issue to UN |work = Manila Bulletin |access-date = 10 June 2016 |archive-date = 7 April 2023 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230407015800/https://mb.com.ph/ph-leaves-taiping-island-issue-to-un/ |url-status = live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201605170030.aspx |title = Taiping Island deserves exclusive economic zone: president – Politics – FOCUS TAIWAN – CNA ENGLISH NEWS |date = 17 May 2016 |access-date = 10 June 2016 |archive-date = 10 December 2019 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191210143110/http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201605170030.aspx |url-status = live }}</ref> Lawmakers from the ruling [[Kuomintang|KMT]] and the opposition [[Democratic Progressive Party|DPP]] also joined in to express their disapprovals. Taiwan's [[Fisheries Agency]] declared that Taiwanese fishermen could continue to operate in the waters surrounding Taiping. The [[Coast Guard Administration (Taiwan)|coast guard]] had already deployed a vessel to the area, and a naval frigate mission was pushed ahead of schedule in response to the ruling.<ref name="South China Morning Post">{{cite news |url=http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1988990/taiwan-controlled-taiping-island-rock-says |title=Taiwan-controlled Taiping Island is a rock, says international court in South China Sea ruling |date=12 July 2016 |work=South China Morning Post |author1=Jun Mai|author2=Shi Jiangtao |access-date=13 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160715074244/http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1988990/taiwan-controlled-taiping-island-rock-says |archive-date=15 July 2016 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/taiwan-rejects-south-china-sea-ruling-says-will-deploy-another-navy-vessel-to-itu-aba | work = [[The Straits Times]] | date = 12 July 2016 | first = Jermyn | last = Chow | title = Taiwan rejects South China Sea ruling, says will deploy another navy vessel to Taiping | access-date = 13 July 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180617015244/https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/taiwan-rejects-south-china-sea-ruling-says-will-deploy-another-navy-vessel-to-itu-aba | archive-date = 17 June 2018 | url-status = live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Tiezzi |first1=Shannon |title=Taiwan: South China Sea Ruling 'Completely Unacceptable' |url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/taiwan-south-china-sea-ruling-completely-unacceptable/ |work=The Diplomat |date=13 July 2016 |access-date=18 April 2022 |archive-date=18 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220418030539/https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/taiwan-south-china-sea-ruling-completely-unacceptable/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===  Vietnamese stance ===
On 11 December 2014, Vietnam filed a statement to the tribunal which put forward three points: 1) Vietnam supports the filing of this case by the Philippines, 2) it rejects China's "nine-dashed line", and 3) it asks the arbitral tribunal to take note of Vietnam's claims on certain islands such as the [[Paracel Islands|Paracels]].<ref name=vietnam>{{cite news |url = http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-12/south-china-sea-tensions-flare-as-vietnam-files-stance-to-court.html |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20141213103712/http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-12/south-china-sea-tensions-flare-as-vietnam-files-stance-to-court.html |archive-date=13 December 2014 |work=Bloomberg |title=South China Sea Tensions Flare as Vietnam Files Stance to Court }}</ref>

===Other stances===
Brunei sent its own UNCLOS claim through a preliminary submission prior to the arbitration.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/preliminary/brn2009preliminaryinformation.pdf |title = Brunei Darussalam's Preliminary Submission concerning the Outer Limits of its Continental Shelf |access-date = 19 November 2013 |publisher = [[United Nations]] |archive-date = 25 October 2012 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121025202212/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/preliminary/brn2009preliminaryinformation.pdf |url-status = live }}</ref> In May 2009, Malaysia and Vietnam, as well as Vietnam alone, filed claims to the [[International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea]] with regard to the islands.{{Clarify|reason=which ones?|date=July 2016}} This was in relation to extending their claimed continental shelves and Exclusive Economic Zones. The People's Republic of China rejected the claims since those violate the nine-dash line. The Philippines challenged the Malaysian claim stating that the claims overlap with the [[North Borneo dispute]].<ref name="Malaysia Vietnam">{{cite web |date=3 May 2011 |title=Submissions to the Commission: Joint submission by Malaysia and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam |url=https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_mysvnm_33_2009.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170708054021/http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_mysvnm_33_2009.htm |archive-date=8 July 2017 |access-date=19 November 2013 |publisher=[[United Nations]] Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea}}</ref> [[Indonesia]] made a comment asking whether China's view regarding rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own apply to the South China Sea islands as well as Japan's [[Okinotorishima|Okinitorishima]].<ref name="Malaysia Vietnam" /><ref name="Davenport">{{cite web |date=11 August 2011 |title=CLCS submissions and claims in the South China Sea, by Robert C. Beckman & Tara Davenport |url=http://southchinaseastudies.org/en/conferences-and-seminars-/second-international-workshop/608-clcs-submissions-and-claims-in-the-south-china-sea-by-robert-c-beckman-a-tara-davenport |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306082720/http://southchinaseastudies.org/en/conferences-and-seminars-/second-international-workshop/608-clcs-submissions-and-claims-in-the-south-china-sea-by-robert-c-beckman-a-tara-davenport |archive-date=6 March 2016 |access-date=19 November 2013 |publisher=SouthChinaSeaStudies.org}}</ref>

In 2015 the Philippines offered to downgrade its claim over parts of the Malaysian state of [[Sabah]] in exchange for Malaysia to adopt a different position on maritime claims that could help strengthen Philippines' case in its arbitration against China. The proposed position however was considered to be against Malaysia's maritime interest, with the added risk of hurting the country's ties with China.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Philippines offers Sabah to win Malaysia's support for UN case vs China |url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/03/29/1439007/philippines-offers-sabah-win-malaysias-support-un-case-vs-china |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=Philstar.com}}</ref>

==Arbitration process==
The arbitration tribunal formed on 21 June 2013.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=122}} The Philippines presented its petition on 30 March 2014.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=122}} The contentions in its initial petition disputed the nine-dash line's validity, China's environmental impact, and the legality of China's contact with Filipino vessels in the area.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=122}} In 2015, the Philippines added contentions based on China's land reclamation projects.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=122}}

Following China's issuance of its December 2014 white paper on lack of jurisdiction, the tribunal decided to address jurisdictional issues first.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=123}} The tribunal convened a Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 7 to 13 July 2015, rendered an Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 29 October 2015, convened a hearing on the merits from 24 to 30 November 2015, and issued a unanimous award on 12 July 2016.<ref name="pr11" /> 

The tribunal's November merits hearing proceeded without China's attendance.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=123}} Because China did not participate in the arbitration, the arbitrators based their view of the Chinese position on China's 2014 white paper and letters sent to the tribunal from China's [[China–Netherlands relations|ambassador to the Netherlands]].<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=127}}

===Hearings===
On 7 July 2015, case hearings began with the Philippines asking the arbitral tribunal to invalidate China's claims. The hearings were also attended by observers from [[Indonesia]], [[Japan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Thailand]] and Vietnam.<ref name=APstory1 />

On 29 October 2015, the tribunal ruled that it had the power to hear the case. It agreed to take up seven of the 15 submissions made by Manila, in particular whether Scarborough Shoal and low-tide areas like Mischief Reef can be considered islands. It set aside seven more pointed claims mainly accusing Beijing of acting unlawfully to be considered at the next hearing on the case's merits. It also told Manila to narrow down the scope of its final request that the judges order that "China shall desist from further unlawful claims and activities."<ref name="auto"/>

=== Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility ===
On 29 October 2015, the PCA published the award by the arbitral tribunal on Jurisdiction and Admissibility<ref name=jurisadmiss>{{cite web |title=Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility |date=29 October 2015 |publisher=Permanent Court of Arbitration |url=https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2579 |language=en |access-date=30 January 2022 |archive-date=3 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220503202232/https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2579 |url-status=live }}</ref> for the case. The award favored the Philippines on most of its contentions.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=123}} The tribunal found that it has jurisdiction to consider the following seven Philippines' Submissions. (Each number is the Philippines' Submissions number.) The tribunal reserved consideration of its jurisdiction to rule on Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 14.

*No.3 Philippines' position that Scarborough Shoal is a rock under Article 121(3).
*No.4 Philippines' position that Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are low tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to maritime zones.
*No.6 Whether Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including Hughes Reef) are low-tide elevations "that do not generate any maritime entitlements of their own".
*No.7 Whether Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef do or do not generate an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
*No.10 "premised on [the] fact that China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from carrying out traditional fishing activities within the territorial sea of Scarborough Shoal."
*No.11 "China's failure to protect and preserve the marine environment at these two shoals [Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal]."
*No.13 Philippines' protest against China's "purported law enforcement activities as violating the Convention on the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea and also violating UNCLOS".

The tribunal stated in the award that there are continuing disputes in all of the 15 submissions from the Philippines,<ref name=jurisadmiss /> but for submissions such as No.3, No.4, No.6 and No.7, no known claims from the Philippines prior to the initiation of this arbitration exist, and that China was not aware of (nor had previously opposed) such claims prior to the initiation of arbitration. For Submissions No.8 to No.14, the tribunal held the view that the lawfulness of China's maritime activities in the South China Sea is not related to sovereignty.

== Award ==
On 12 July 2016, the PCA published the [[arbitration award|award]] by the arbitral tribunal which it states is final and binding as set out in the convention.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Harvey |first=Adam |date=13 July 2016 |title=Philippines celebrates victory in South China Sea case, despite China's refusal to accept result |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/philippines-celebrates-victory-in-south-china-sea-case/7623440 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160713160746/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/philippines-celebrates-victory-in-south-china-sea-case/7623440 |archive-date=13 July 2016 |access-date=13 July 2016 |work=ABC News}}</ref><ref name=pr11 /> Conclusions expressed in the award included the following:
: Regarding the "Nine-Dash Line" and China's claim in the maritime areas of the South China Sea<ref name="PCA Award">{{cite web |url = https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2086 |title = Award: PCA case N° 2013-19 in the matter of the South China Sea arbitration |publisher = Permanent Court of Arbitration |date = 12 July 2016 |access-date = 30 January 2022 |archive-date = 30 January 2022 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220130083816/https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2086 |url-status = live }}</ref>
:* The [UNCLOS] Convention defines the scope of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, which may not extend beyond the limits imposed therein.{{refn|PCA Award, Section V(F)(d)(277), p.116.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
:* China's claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the 'nine-dash line' are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China's maritime entitlements under the Convention. The Convention superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein.{{refn|PCA Award, Section V(F)(d)(278), p. 117.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
: Regarding the status of features as above/below water at high tide (Submissions no. 4 and 6)
:* High-tide features: (a) Scarborough Shoal, (b) Cuarteron Reef, (c) Fiery Cross Reef, (d) Johnson Reef, (e) McKennan Reef, and (f) Gaven Reef (North).{{refn|PCA Award, Section VI(B)(5)(d)(382), p.174.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
:* Low-tide elevations: (a) Hughes Reef, (b) Gaven Reef (South), (c) Subi Reef, (d) Mischief Reef, (e) Second Thomas Shoal.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VI(B)(5)(d)(383), p. 174.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
:* Hughes Reef lies within 12 nautical miles of the high-tide features on McKennan Reef and Sin Cowe Island, Gaven Reef (South) lies within 12 nautical miles of the high-tide features at Gaven Reef (North) and Namyit Island, and that Subi Reef lies within 12 nautical miles of the high-tide feature of Sandy Cay on the reefs to the west of Thitu.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VI(B)(5)(d)(384), p. 174.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
: Regarding the status of features as rocks/islands (Submissions no. 3, 5, and 7)
:* Scarborough Shoal contains, within the meaning of Article 121(1) of the Convention, naturally formed areas of land, surrounded by water, which are above water at high tide. However, under Article 121(3) of the Convention, the high-tide features at Scarborough Shoal are rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own and accordingly shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VI(C)(5)(f)(643), p. 259.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
:* Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef contain, within the meaning of Article 121(1) of the Convention, naturally formed areas of land, surrounded by water, which are above water at high tide. However, for purposes of Article 121(3) of the Convention, the high-tide features at Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own and accordingly shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VI(C)(5)(f)(644), p. 259.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
:* The high-tide features at Gaven Reef (North) and McKennan Reef are rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own and accordingly shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VI(C)(5)(f)(645), p.259.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
:*Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are both low-tide elevations that generate no maritime zones of their own [and] that none of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands are capable of sustaining human habitation or an economic life of their own within the meaning of those terms in Article 121(3) of the Convention. All of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands are therefore legally rocks for purposes of Article 121(3) and do not generate entitlements to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. There is, accordingly, no possible entitlement by China to any maritime zone in the area of either Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal and no jurisdictional obstacle to the tribunal's consideration of the Philippines' Submission No. 5.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VI(C)(5)(f)(646), p.259-260.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
:* Both Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are located within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines' coast on the island of Palawan and are located in an area that is not overlapped by the entitlements generated by any maritime feature claimed by China. It follows, therefore, that, as between the Philippines and China, Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal form part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VI(C)(5)(f)(647), p. 260.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
: Regarding alleged interference with the Philippines' sovereign rights in its EEZ and continental shelf (Submission no. 8)
:* China has, through the operation of its marine surveillance vessels with respect to M/V Veritas Voyager on 1 to 2 March 2011 breached Article 77 of the Convention with respect to the Philippines' sovereign rights over the non-living resources of its continental shelf in the area of Reed Bank [and] that China has, by promulgating its 2012 moratorium on fishing in the South China Sea, without exception for areas of the South China Sea falling within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines and without limiting the moratorium to Chinese flagged vessels, breached Article 56 of the Convention with respect to the Philippines' sovereign rights over the living resources of its exclusive economic zone.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VII(A)(5)(c)(716), p. 286.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
: Regarding alleged failure to prevent Chinese nationals from exploiting the Philippines' living resources (Submission no. 9)
:* China has, through the operation of its marine surveillance vessels in tolerating and failing to exercise due diligence to prevent fishing by Chinese flagged vessels at Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal in May 2013, failed to exhibit due regard for the Philippines' sovereign rights with respect to fisheries in its exclusive economic zone. Accordingly, China has breached its obligations under Article 58(3) of the Convention.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VII(B)(5)(d)(757), p.297.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
: Regarding China's actions in respect of traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal (Submission no. 10)
:*China has, through the operation of its official vessels at Scarborough Shoal from May 2012 onwards, unlawfully prevented Filipino fishermen from engaging in traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VII(C)(5)(c)(814), p. 318.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
: Regarding alleged failure to protect and preserve the marine environment (Submissions no. 11 and 12(B))
:* China has, through its toleration and protection of, and failure to prevent Chinese fishing vessels engaging in harmful harvesting activities of endangered species at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal and other features in the Spratly Islands, breached Articles 192 and 194(5) of the Convention.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VII(D)(5)(e)(992), p. 397.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
:* China has, through its island-building activities at Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, Subi Reef and Mischief Reef, breached Articles 192, 194(1), 194(5), 197, 123, and 206 of the Convention.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VII(D)(5)(e)(993), p. 397.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
:Regarding occupation and construction activities on Mischief Reef (Submission no. 12)
:*China has, through its construction of installations and artificial islands at Mischief Reef without the authorisation of the Philippines, breached Articles 60 and 80 of the Convention with respect to the Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf [and], as a low-tide elevation, Mischief Reef is not capable of appropriation.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VII(E)(5)(c)(1043), p. 415.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
:Regarding operation of law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner (Submission no. 13)
:*China has, by virtue of the conduct of Chinese law enforcement vessels in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal, created serious risk of collision and danger to Philippine vessels and personnel. The tribunal finds China to have violated Rules 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the COLREGS and, as a consequence, to be in breach of Article 94 of the Convention.{{refn|PCA Award, Section VII(F)(5)(d)(1109), p. 435.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
: Regarding aggravation or extension of the dispute between the parties (Submission No. 14)
:* China has in the course of these proceedings aggravated and extended the disputes between the Parties through its dredging, artificial island-building, and construction activities [in several particulars itemised in the award].{{refn|PCA Award, Section VIII(E)(4)(1181), p. 464.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}
: Regarding the future conduct of the parties (Submission no. 15)
:* Both Parties are obliged to comply with the Convention, including its provisions regarding the resolution of disputes, and to respect the rights and freedoms of other States under the Convention. Neither Party contests this.{{refn|PCA Award, Section IX(D)(1201), p. 469.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}

==Tribunal's position on the award==
The tribunal had considered the issues related to the maritime areas in South China Sea. It declared its position on the award that: 
{{Blockquote
|text="Nothing in this Award should be understood to comment in any way on China’s historic claim to the islands of the South China Sea."
}}
Its position reaffirms that the tribunal's rulings do not apply to China's territorial sovereignty claims over the islands and maritime features in South China Sea, and the award would not make any implication in China's sovereignty claims.{{refn|PCA Award, p. 137.<ref name="PCA Award" />}}

==Timeline==
* 22 January 2013 – Philippines served China with notification and Statement of Claim<ref>{{cite journal |last=Rothwell |first=Donald R. |title= The Arbitration between the People's Republic of China and the Philippines Over the Dispute in the South China Sea |date=30 January 2015 |journal= ANU College of Law Research Paper |number=14–48 |ssrn=2557871 }}</ref>
* 19 February 2013 – China rejected the Philippines' Notification
* 11 July 2013 – First meeting of the arbitral tribunal at The Hague
* 31 July 2013 – Philippines commented on draft Rules of Procedure for the Tribunal
* 1 August 2013 – China indicated that "it does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines"
* 27 August 2013 – Procedural Order No 1 issued via PCA Press Release on behalf of the arbitral tribunal<ref name="procedure1">{{cite web |title=Procedural Order No. 1 |date=27 August 2013 |publisher=Permanent Court of Arbitration |url=https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1804 |access-date=30 January 2022 |archive-date=2 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220302113152/https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1804 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* 30 March 2014 – Submission of the Philippines Memorial
* 14–15 May 2014 – Second meeting of the arbitral tribunal at The Hague
* 21 May 2014 – China comments on draft Procedural Order No 2 and observes that "it does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines". 
* 29 May 2014 – Philippines comments on draft Procedural Order No 2
* 2 June 2014 – Procedural Order No 2 issued via PCA Press Release on behalf of the arbitral tribunal<ref name="procedure2">{{cite web |title=Procedural Order No. 2 |date=2 June 2014 |publisher=Permanent Court of Arbitration |url=https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1805 |access-date=30 January 2022 |archive-date=30 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220430183455/http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1805 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* 15 December 2014 – China had not filed a Counter-Memorial<ref name="pr3">{{cite web |title = Third Press Release |date = 17 December 2014 |publisher = Permanent Court of Arbitration |url = https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1295 |language = en |access-date = 30 January 2022 |archive-date = 18 June 2022 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220618043641/https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1295 |url-status = live }}</ref>
* 16 December 2014 – Procedural Order No 3 issued via PCA Press Release on behalf of the arbitral tribunal<ref name="procedure3">{{cite web |title=Procedural Order No. 3 |date=16 December 2014 |publisher=Permanent Court of Arbitration |url=https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1806 |access-date=30 January 2022 |archive-date=22 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180822045854/http://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1806 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* 16 March 2015 – The Philippines made a Supplemental Written Submission to the Arbitral Tribunal<ref name="pr4">{{cite web |title = Fourth Press Release |date = 22 April 2015 |publisher = Permanent Court of Arbitration |url = https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1298 |language = en |access-date = 30 January 2022 |archive-date = 27 January 2022 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220127075540/https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1298 |url-status = live }}</ref>
* 20–21 April 2015 – Third meeting of the arbitral tribunal at The Hague<ref name=pr4 />
* 21 April 2015 – Procedural Order No 4 issued via PCA Press Release on behalf of the arbitral tribunal<ref name="procedure4">{{cite web |title=Procedural Order No. 4 |date=21 April 2015 |publisher=Permanent Court of Arbitration |url=https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1807 |access-date=30 January 2022 |archive-date=20 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220120165442/https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1807 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* 7–13 July 2015 – Hearing of the arbitral tribunal at The Hague<ref name="pr5">{{cite web |title = Fifth Press Release |date = 7 July 2015 |publisher = Permanent Court of Arbitration |url = https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1301 |language = en |access-date = 30 January 2022 |archive-date = 22 December 2022 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20221222164039/https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1301 |url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="pr6">{{cite web |title = Sixth Press Release |date = 13 July 2015 |publisher = Permanent Court of Arbitration |url = https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1304 |language = en |access-date = 30 January 2022 |archive-date = 18 June 2022 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220618043654/https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1304 |url-status = live }}</ref>
* 29 October 2015 – PCA issued award on jurisdiction and admissibility<ref name=jurisadmiss />
* 12 July 2016 – PCA issued award on merits<ref name="PCA Award" />

==Reactions==
{{Further|Regional reactions to China's maritime activities in the South China Sea}}

===Before the ruling===
There are countries and multinational bodies that have expressed support or opposition to the Philippines' move to take the South China Sea dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. These entities however may not necessarily support either sides when it comes to the ownership of the disputed area affected by the case.

====National governments====
Compiled from the [[Center for Strategic and International Studies]],<ref name=AMTIcountries>{{cite web |url=https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-support-tracker/ |title=Arbitration Support Tracker {{!}} Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative |publisher=Center for Strategic and International Studies |access-date=28 January 2018 |date=16 June 2016 |archive-date=22 April 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200422151410/https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-support-tracker/ |url-status=live }}</ref> the [[Council of the EU]] and the [[European Council]],<ref name="council-eu-pr">{{cite press release |author = <!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title = Declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the EU on Recent Developments in the South China Sea |url = http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/11-hr-declaration-on-bealf-of-eu-recent-developments-south-china-sea/ |publisher = Foreign affairs & international relations, Council of the EU |date = 11 March 2016 |quote = the EU urges all claimants [...] to pursue them in accordance with international law including UNCLOS and its arbitration procedures |access-date = 28 June 2016 |archive-date = 11 January 2017 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170111005024/http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/11-hr-declaration-on-bealf-of-eu-recent-developments-south-china-sea/ |url-status = live }}</ref> and the [[Philippine Daily Inquirer]]<ref name = "group3" >{{cite news|title = 7 countries send observers to monitor PH case vs China|url = http://globalnation.inquirer.net/132852/7-countries-send-observers-to-monitor-ph-case-vs-china|access-date = 28 June 2016|newspaper = Philippine Daily Inquirer|date = 26 November 2015|archive-date = 14 August 2016|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160814165538/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/132852/7-countries-send-observers-to-monitor-ph-case-vs-china|url-status = live}}</ref>

;Support for the arbitration/Denial of PRC's claim 
{{col-list|colwidth=15em|
* {{flag|Albania}}
* {{flag|Australia}}<ref>{{cite news |last1=Flitton |first1=Daniel |title=High stakes on the high seas: Philippines v China at The Hague |url=http://www.smh.com.au/world/high-stakes-on-the-high-seas-philippines-v-china-20160630-gpvgqm.html |agency=SMH |publisher=SMH |date=12 July 2016 |access-date=21 January 2017 |archive-date=24 January 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170124124204/http://www.smh.com.au/world/high-stakes-on-the-high-seas-philippines-v-china-20160630-gpvgqm.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="reuters-australia">{{cite news |author1=Ben Blanchard |author2=Tim Kelly |title=China raps Australia foreign minister ahead of Beijing trip |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-australia-idUSKCN0VP0C8 |access-date=28 June 2016 |work=Reuters |date=16 February 2016 |archive-date=6 June 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160606041256/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-australia-idUSKCN0VP0C8 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* {{flag|Austria}}
* {{flag|Belgium}}
* {{flag|Botswana}}<ref name="botswana">{{cite press release |author = <!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title = South China Sea |url = http://www.mofaic.gov.bw/images/Press_Release_South_China_Sea.pdf |location = Gaborone, Botswana |publisher = Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Republic of Botswana |date = 17 February 2016 |access-date = 28 June 2016 }}{{dead link|date=January 2018|bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
* {{flag|Bosnia and Herzegovina}}
* {{flag|Bulgaria}}
* {{flag|Canada}}<ref name=g7maritimesecurity>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180128060314/http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/foreign/160411-maritime.pdf |archive-date=28 January 2018 |url=http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/foreign/160411-maritime.pdf |title=G7 Foreign Ministers' Statement on Maritime Security April 11, 2016 Hiroshima, Japan |access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref><ref name=CBCg7maritime>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/g7-summit-japan-wednesday-1.3600631 |title=G7's intent to send 'signal' on maritime claims rankles China |publisher=CBC News |date=26 May 2016 |access-date=28 January 2018 |archive-date=25 December 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171225000226/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/g7-summit-japan-wednesday-1.3600631 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* {{flag|Croatia}}
* {{flag|Cyprus}}
* {{flag|Czech Republic}}<ref name= "Czech" >{{cite news |url = http://asiamaritime.net/nato-general-says-china-should-respect-tribunal-on-maritime-claim/ |title = NATO General Says China Should Respect Tribunal on Maritime Claim |date = 3 June 2016 |access-date = 7 June 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160623161040/http://asiamaritime.net/nato-general-says-china-should-respect-tribunal-on-maritime-claim/ |archive-date = 23 June 2016 |url-status = dead }}</ref>
* {{flag|Denmark}}
* {{flag|Estonia}}
* {{flag|Fiji}}
* {{flag|Finland}}
* {{flag|France}}<ref name=g7maritimesecurity/><ref name=Panda2016>{{cite news |last1=Panda |first1=Ankit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180128062018/https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/french-defense-minister-to-urge-eu-south-china-sea-patrols/ |archive-date=28 January 2018 |url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/french-defense-minister-to-urge-eu-south-china-sea-patrols/ |title=French Defense Minister to Urge EU South China Sea Patrols |publisher=The Diplomat |access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Germany}}<ref>{{cite news |title = Germany backs Philippines' position to settle territorial disputes peacefully |url = http://www.manilatimes.net/breaking_news/germany-backs-philippines-position-settle-territorial-disputes-peacefully/ |access-date = 29 May 2016 |agency = Philippine News Agency |work=The Manila Times|date = 20 September 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20141201102926/http://www.manilatimes.net/breaking_news/germany-backs-philippines-position-settle-territorial-disputes-peacefully/ |archive-date = 1 December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Tiezzi|first1=Shannon|title=In China, Germany's Merkel Talks Trade, Syria, and South China Sea|url=https://thediplomat.com/2015/11/in-china-germanys-merkel-talks-trade-syria-and-south-china-sea/|access-date=30 May 2016|publisher=The Diplomat|quote=She [German Chancellor, Angela Merkel] called the disputes "a serious conflict" and gently offered her support for a legal solution: "I am always a bit surprised why in this case multinational courts should not be an option for a solution". Merkel also emphasized Germany's "wish that the sea trade routes stay free and safe, because they are important for all".|archive-date=5 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160405134515/http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/in-china-germanys-merkel-talks-trade-syria-and-south-china-sea/|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{flag|Greece}}
* {{flag|Indonesia}}
* {{flag|Italy}}<ref>{{cite news|last1=Romero|first1=Alexis|title=Italy backs Philippines on UN arbitration over sea dispute|url=http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/12/04/1528823/italy-backs-philippines-un-arbitration-over-sea-dispute|access-date=26 May 2016|work=The Philippine Star|date=4 December 2016|archive-date=8 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160808000730/http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/12/04/1528823/italy-backs-philippines-un-arbitration-over-sea-dispute|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=G7iseshima>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180128062348/http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000160266.pdf |archive-date=28 January 2018 |url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000160266.pdf |title=G7 Ise-Shima Leaders' Declaration: G7 Ise-Shima Summit, 26–27 May 2016 |publisher=Minister of Foreign Affairs Japan |access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Japan}}<ref name=G7iseshima/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Diola |first1=Camille |title=Japan backs Philippines' legal move vs. China |url=http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/04/01/1307607/japan-backs-philippines-legal-move-vs.-china |access-date=29 May 2016 |work=The Philippine Star|date=1 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170111034201/http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/04/01/1307607/japan-backs-philippines-legal-move-vs.-china |archive-date=11 January 2017 |url-status=dead  }}</ref>
* {{flag|Latvia}}
* {{flag|Liechtenstein}}
* {{flag|Lithuania}}
* {{flag|Luxembourg}}
* {{flag|Malaysia}}
* {{flag|Malta}}
* {{flag|Moldova}}
* {{flag|Montenegro}}
* {{flag|Netherlands}}
* {{flag|New Zealand}}<ref name="nz-foreign-minister">{{cite speech |title = Address to Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy |author = Murray McCully (New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs) |author-link = Murray McCully |date = 9 March 2016 |location = Singapore |url = https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/address-lee-kuan-yew-school-public-policy |quote = We also support the role arbitration can play in resolving complex disputes and we support states' rights to access dispute settlement mechanisms. [...] We expect all parties to respect the result of the Tribunal's ruling. |access-date = 28 June 2016 |archive-date = 22 August 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160822050033/https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/address-lee-kuan-yew-school-public-policy |url-status = live }}</ref>
* {{flag|Poland}}<ref>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160801123457/http://forbes.house.gov/updates/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399298 |archive-date=1 August 2016 |url=http://forbes.house.gov/updates/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399298 |title=China Caucus Blog |publisher=House.gov |access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Portugal}}
* {{flag|Romania}}
* {{flag|Singapore}}
* {{flag|Slovakia}}
* {{flag|Slovenia}}
* {{flag|Spain}}<ref name = "Spain" >{{cite news|title = Spain to support PH in sea row|url = http://globalnation.inquirer.net/111149/spain-expresses-heightened-concern|access-date = 28 June 2016|newspaper = Philippine Daily Inquirer|date = 16 September 2014|archive-date = 1 July 2016|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160701220218/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/111149/spain-expresses-heightened-concern|url-status = live}}</ref>
* {{flag|Sweden}}
* {{flag|Thailand}}
* {{flag|United Kingdom}}<ref name=UnitedKingdom>{{cite news |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180128064511/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/25/david-cameron-china-ruling-south-china-sea-the-hague-Philippines |archive-date=28 January 2018 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/25/david-cameron-china-ruling-south-china-sea-the-hague-philippines |title=David Cameron: China must abide by ruling on South China Sea |work=The Guardian|access-date=28 January 2018 }}</ref>
* {{flag|United States}}<ref name="obama-press-conference">{{cite speech |title = Remarks by President Obama at U.S.-ASEAN Press Conference |author = Barack Obama |author-link = Barack Obama |date = 16 February 2016 |location = California, USA |url = https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/16/remarks-president-obama-us-asean-press-conference |quote = And we discussed how any disputes between claimants in the region must be resolved peacefully, through legal means, such as the upcoming arbitration ruling under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Seas, which the parties are obligated to respect and abide by. |via = [[NARA|National Archives]] |work = [[whitehouse.gov]] |access-date = 28 June 2016 |archive-date = 21 January 2017 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170121010421/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/16/remarks-president-obama-us-asean-press-conference |url-status = live }}</ref>
* {{flag|Vietnam}}<ref name=vietnam/><ref>{{cite news |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180128064734/http://news.chinhphu.vn/Home/VN-backs-peaceful-solutions-to-disputes-in-East-Sea/20166/27509.vgp |archive-date=28 January 2018 |url = http://news.chinhphu.vn/Home/VN-backs-peaceful-solutions-to-disputes-in-East-Sea/20166/27509.vgp |title = VN backs peaceful solutions to disputes in East Sea |access-date=28 January 2018 }}</ref>
}}

; Opposed to arbitration
{{col-list|colwidth=15em|
* {{flag|Afghanistan|2013}}
* {{flag|Algeria}}
* {{flag|Bahrain}}
* {{flag|China}}
* {{flag|Comoros}}
* {{flag|Djibouti}}
* {{flag|Egypt}}
* {{flag|Gambia}}
* {{flag|Iraq}}
* {{flag|Jordan}}
* {{flag|Kenya}}<ref>{{cite web |url = http://allafrica.com/stories/201606140827.html |title = Kenya Backs China's Approach to South China Sea Disputes |access-date = 14 June 2016 |archive-date = 17 June 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160617043711/http://allafrica.com/stories/201606140827.html |url-status = live }}</ref>
* {{flag|Kuwait}}
* {{flag|Lebanon}}
* {{flag|Libya}}
* {{flag|Mauritania}}
* {{flag|Morocco}}
* {{flag|Niger}}
* {{flag|Oman}}
* {{flag|Palestine}}<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ramani |first1=Samuel |title=Why Palestine Supports China on the South China Sea |url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/why-palestine-supports-china-on-the-south-china-sea/ |publisher=The Diplomat |access-date=11 September 2024 |date=26 July 2016 |archive-date=6 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240706143108/https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/why-palestine-supports-china-on-the-south-china-sea/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
* {{flag|Qatar}}
* {{flag|Saudi Arabia}}
* {{flag|Somalia}}
* {{flag|Sudan}}
* {{flag|Syria}}
* {{flag|Taiwan}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://english.rti.org.tw/news/?recordId=42761|title=Taiwan rejects arbitration on South China Sea: Foreign ministry|publisher=Radio Taiwan International|access-date=1 July 2016|archive-date=15 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161215203141/http://english.rti.org.tw/news/?recordId=42761|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{flag|Togo}}
* {{flag|Tunisia}}
* {{flag|United Arab Emirates}}
* {{flag|Vanuatu}}
* {{flag|Yemen}}
}}

; No public confirmation of stance towards the arbitration
* {{flag|Belarus}}
* {{flag|Brunei}}
* {{flag|Laos}}
* {{flag|Pakistan}}
* {{flag|Russia}} 
* {{flag|South Africa}}
* {{flag|Sri Lanka}}

====ASEAN====
{{main article|ASEAN}}

Within the [[Association of Southeast Asian Nations]] (ASEAN), Malaysia and Vietnam, who have territorial claims in the South China Sea, as well as Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore and Thailand, sent observers to the proceedings.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://thediplomat.com/2015/12/amid-south-china-sea-tensions-japan-strengthes-ties-with-philippines-vietnam/|title=Amid South China Sea Tensions, Japan Strengthens Ties With Philippines, Vietnam|author1=Mina Pollmann|author2=The Diplomat|work=The Diplomat|access-date=12 February 2021|archive-date=7 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210307211551/https://thediplomat.com/2015/12/amid-south-china-sea-tensions-japan-strengthes-ties-with-philippines-vietnam/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|newspaper=Philippine Daily Inquirer|url=http://globalnation.inquirer.net/132852/7-countries-send-observers-to-monitor-ph-case-vs-china|title=7 countries send observers to monitor PH case vs China|first=Niña P.|last=Calleja|access-date=28 June 2016|archive-date=14 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160814165538/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/132852/7-countries-send-observers-to-monitor-ph-case-vs-china|url-status=live}}</ref>

In June 2016, before the tribunal issued its ruling, Malaysia's foreign ministry released what it said was a joint statement of ASEAN expressing "serious concern" over land reclamation activities in the South China Sea. Within hours of issuing the statement, Malaysia announced that ASEAN wanted the statement retracted for "urgent amendments". Malaysian Foreign Ministry's Secretary General Othman Hashim later claimed that ASEAN's foreign ministers had "unanimously agreed" to the statement at a meeting, and that "Subsequent developments pertaining to the media statement took place after the departure of the ASEAN foreign ministers".<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2016/06/416964.html | title=Login – Kyodo News | access-date=15 September 2016 | archive-date=21 July 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160721025436/http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2016/06/416964.html | url-status=live }}</ref>

Cambodian Prime Minister [[Hun Sen]] later gave a speech condemning reports that Cambodia had had the statement retracted in order to please China, saying, "Cambodia will not be a puppet of anyone on the South China Sea issue."<ref name="vosneutrality">{{Cite web | url=https://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2016/06/417263.html | title=Login – Kyodo News | access-date=15 September 2016 | archive-date=16 September 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160916041921/https://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2016/06/417263.html | url-status=live }}</ref> Hun Sen suggested the case was a "political conspiracy" and that the ruling "will not be fair",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.todayonline.com/world/asia/cambodian-pm-denies-role-asean-u-turn-south-china-sea|title=Hun Sen denies Cambodia caved in to Chinese pressure on Asean statement|access-date=15 September 2016|archive-date=13 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161013125327/http://www.todayonline.com/world/asia/cambodian-pm-denies-role-asean-u-turn-south-china-sea|url-status=live}}</ref> but also said that "Cambodia will just choose to stay neutral on this issue."<ref name="vosneutrality" /> A few days after Hun Sen's speech, the Cambodian People's Party, which Hun Sen heads, issued a statement backing him. According to the statement, "The CPP would like to reject unjust allegations that Cambodia has destroyed the issuing of a joint statement from ASEAN on the issue of the South China Sea both in Kunming recently and in 2012".<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.khmertimeskh.com/news/26488/cpp-backs-pm-on-south-china-sea/ |title = CPP Backs PM on South China Sea |date = 23 June 2016 }}</ref>

On 9 July, shortly before the tribunal issued its ruling, Cambodia's foreign ministry issued a statement reiterating that Cambodia would not join any ASEAN statement on the ruling.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mfaic.gov.kh/?page=detail&ctype=article&id=1916&lg=en|title=Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation on Cambodia's Position over South China Sea|access-date=15 September 2016|archive-date=19 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160919032646/http://www.mfaic.gov.kh/?page=detail&ctype=article&id=1916&lg=en|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Australia====
Australia has not sought to take a public position on the matter other than to state that the ruling of the tribunal should be respected.<ref name="aspistrategist.org.au">{{cite web|url=http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-and-the-south-china-sea-arbitration-case/|title=Australia and the South China Sea arbitration case – The Strategist|date=17 December 2015|access-date=29 June 2016|archive-date=25 June 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160625063335/http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-and-the-south-china-sea-arbitration-case/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="sg.news.yahoo.com">{{cite web|url=https://sg.news.yahoo.com/australia-nations-respect-tribunal-china-sea-200729405.html|title=Australia: Nations will respect tribunal on S China Sea|access-date=29 June 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160203052555/https://sg.news.yahoo.com/australia-nations-respect-tribunal-china-sea-200729405.html |archive-date=3 February 2016}}</ref> However, Australia has recognised the right of the Philippines to seek arbitration.<ref name="reuters-australia"/>

====European Union====
European Union encourages all parties to seek peaceful solutions, through dialogue and cooperation, in accordance with international law – in particular with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.<ref>{{cite news |work = Rappler |url = http://www.rappler.com/nation/69293-philippines-aquino-eu-barroso-unclos |title = Philippines, EU show common stance on China |access-date = 27 May 2016 |archive-date = 11 January 2017 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170111032146/http://www.rappler.com/nation/69293-philippines-aquino-eu-barroso-unclos |url-status = live }}</ref> A foreign affairs of the EU issued a statement saying "Whilst not taking a position on claims, the EU is committed to a maritime order based upon the principles of international law, in particular as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS),".<ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-eu-idUSKCN0SO22G20151031 |title = European Union sides with United States on South China Sea incident |date = 31 October 2015 |work = Reuters |access-date = 1 July 2017 |archive-date = 3 July 2017 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170703214004/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-eu-idUSKCN0SO22G20151031 |url-status = live }}</ref> The EU later stressed that China should respect the ruling from the Hague.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/19/south-china-sea-britain-court-arbitration-ruling-binding |title = South China Sea: Britain says court of arbitration ruling must be binding |website = [[TheGuardian.com]] |agency = Reuters |date = 19 April 2016 |access-date = 17 December 2016 |archive-date = 11 January 2017 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170111081757/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/19/south-china-sea-britain-court-arbitration-ruling-binding |url-status = live }}</ref>

==== Group of Seven ====
The Group of 7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States as well as a representation from the European Union) made a statement that the bloc should issue a "clear signal" to China's overlapping claims.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://atimes.com/2016/05/xinhua-warns-g7-against-south-china-sea-meddling/ |title = G7 sees need to send strong message on South, East China Sea disputes |date=26 May 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160527211744/http://atimes.com/2016/05/xinhua-warns-g7-against-south-china-sea-meddling/ |archive-date = 27 May 2016 }}</ref>
European Council President [[Donald Tusk]] said on the sidelines of a summit in Ise-Shima that the bloc should take a "clear and tough stance" on China's contested maritime claims.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://sg.news.yahoo.com/chinese-state-media-warns-g7-against-south-china-070500418.html |title = Chinese state media warns G7 against South China Sea 'meddling' |date = 26 May 2016 |access-date = 27 May 2016 |archive-date = 25 June 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160625083032/https://sg.news.yahoo.com/chinese-state-media-warns-g7-against-south-china-070500418.html |url-status = live }}</ref>

====India====
In August 2015, a junior [[Minister of State]] of India, [[V K Singh]], told that territorial disputes should be resolved through peaceful means as was done by India and Bangladesh using the mechanisms provided by the UNCLOS, and parties should abide by the Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.firstpost.com/world/india-ticks-china-south-china-sea-issue-2384358.html |title = India once again ticks of China over South China Sea issue |date = 8 August 2015 |work = Firstpost |access-date = 25 May 2016 |archive-date = 8 November 2020 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201108094825/https://www.firstpost.com/world/india-ticks-china-south-china-sea-issue-2384358.html |url-status = live }}</ref> In October 2015, the Foreign Minister of India [[Sushma Swaraj]] stated in a joint statement that India supports a peaceful settlement of the dispute. Peaceful means should be used according to the principles of international law, including the UNCLOS. In April 2016, Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj stated in a communique that Russia, India and China agreed to maintain legal order of seas based on international law, including the UNCLOS, and all related disputes should be addressed through negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned.<ref name="mea.gov.in">{{cite web |url = http://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl%2F26628%2FJoint_Communiqu_of_the_14th_Meeting_of_the_Foreign_Ministers_of_the_Russian_Federation_the_Republic_of_India_and_the_Peoples_Republic_of_China |title = Joint Communiqué of the 14th Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, the Republic of India and the People's Republic of China |access-date = 22 June 2016 |archive-date = 4 August 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160804043038/http://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl%2F26628%2FJoint_Communiqu_of_the_14th_Meeting_of_the_Foreign_Ministers_of_the_Russian_Federation_the_Republic_of_India_and_the_Peoples_Republic_of_China |url-status = live }}</ref>

====New Zealand====

The foreign secretary of New Zealand stated in a speech that New Zealand supports the right to seek arbitration on South China Sea disputes.<ref name="nz-foreign-minister" />

====North Atlantic Treaty Organization====
NATO General Petr Pavel said NATO has "no legal platform" to intervene militarily in the South China Sea territorial disputes, and NATO will not interfere in other region's issues. NATO supports any regional solutions based on political and diplomatic negotiations, "rules-based international system" and peaceful means for resolving discord.<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/nato-has-no-legal-platforms-to-intervene-militarily-in-south-china-sea |title = Nato has 'no legal platforms' to intervene militarily in South China Sea |newspaper = The Straits Times |date = 3 June 2016 |access-date = 12 July 2016 |archive-date = 7 June 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160607071851/http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/nato-has-no-legal-platforms-to-intervene-militarily-in-south-china-sea |url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="Czech" />

====China====
In May 2016, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson [[Hua Chunying]] said that more than 40 countries had expressed their support for China's position.<ref>{{cite news |url = http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-southchinasea-china-idUKKCN0YB1C6 |title = China says more than 40 countries support its stance on South China Sea dispute |newspaper = Reuters |date = 20 May 2016 |access-date = 14 June 2016 |archive-date = 8 November 2020 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201108151058/https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-southchinasea-china-idUKKCN0YB1C6 |url-status = dead }}</ref> One 19 May 2016, Foreign Ministry spokesperson [[Hong Lei (diplomat)|Hong Lei]] stated that Brunei, Mozambique, and Slovenia supported China's stance for negotiations to resolve South China Sea issues.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.chinaembassy-fi.org/eng/fyrth/t1364924.htm |title = Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei's Regular Press Conference on May 19, 2016 |access-date = 17 June 2016 |archive-date = 24 February 2021 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210224191613/http://www.chinaembassy-fi.org/eng/fyrth/t1364924.htm |url-status = live }}</ref> In July 2016, it was reported that more than 70 countries had called for the South China Sea dispute to be resolved through negotiations, not arbitration, although American media and think tanks have expressed doubt, with the [[Center for Strategic and International Studies]] (CSIS) via its Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) putting the number at ten.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/753617.html|title = [Reporter's notebook] How S. Korea squandered its diplomatic goodwill with China|access-date = 24 July 2016|archive-date = 25 July 2016|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160725143214/http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/753617.html|url-status = live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Who Supports China in the South China Sea and Why|url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/who-supports-china-in-the-south-china-sea-and-why/|access-date=27 July 2016|archive-date=28 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160728153413/http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/who-supports-china-in-the-south-china-sea-and-why/|url-status=live}}</ref>

On the day of the arbitration decision, before the decision issued, the [[Ministry of National Defense (China)|Ministry of Defense]] spokesperson stated that regardless of the ruling, China would defend its national sovereignty, security, and maritime rights.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=128}} The spokesperson also sought to dispel any concern of a forceful reaction to an adverse arbitration result by emphasizing that China's then on-going exercises in the South China Sea were merely an annual and routine exercise.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=128}}

====Shanghai Cooperation Organisation====
In a statement of the [[Shanghai Cooperation Organisation]] Secretary-General Rashid Olimov on South China Sea issue, all SCO countries agreed and supported China's efforts made to safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea. Directly concerned states should resolve disputes through negotiation and consultation in accordance with all bilateral treaties and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), the statement said. It urged to respect the right of every sovereign state to decide by itself the dispute resolution methods, and strongly opposed outsiders' intervention into the South China Sea issue, as well as the attempt to internationalise the dispute.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.china.org.cn/world/2016-05/25/content_38530226.htm|title=SCO supports peace and stability in South China Sea|author=李珅|access-date=25 May 2016|archive-date=26 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160526101542/http://www.china.org.cn/world/2016-05/25/content_38530226.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>

====South Korea====
During the 2015 [[East Asia Summit]], South Korea's President [[Park Geun-hye]] stated that concerned parties should observe the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and that disputes should be resolved according to international law. "Korea has consistently stressed that the dispute must be peacefully resolved according to international agreements and code of conduct" and "China must guarantee the right of free navigation and flight.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=863|title=South Korea and the South China Sea: A Domestic and International Balancing Act|access-date=31 May 2016|archive-date=7 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180507221349/http://nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=863|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/07/02/south-korea-stand-south-china-sea-dispute/|title=Where does South Korea Stand on the South China Sea Dispute?|date=2 July 2014|access-date=31 May 2016|archive-date=29 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190629144853/https://intpolicydigest.org/2014/07/02/south-korea-stand-south-china-sea-dispute/|url-status=live}}</ref> The ''[[Asahi Shimbun]]'' reports that the United States has made an unofficial request to South Korea to express its position on the arbitration case before the ruling but South Korea reportedly turned down the request saying its difficult make a position prior to the ruling.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_In_detail.htm?No=119474 |title=Asahi: US Asked Seoul to Express Support for Ruling on Beijing-Manila Sea Dispute |access-date=1 July 2016 |archive-date=4 June 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160604113211/http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_In_detail.htm?No=119474 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===After the ruling===

====National governments====
Compiled from the [[Center for Strategic and International Studies]],<ref name=AMTI2023 /> the [[Council of the EU]] and the [[European Council]],<ref name=EUdeclarationjuly2016>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180209060419/https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/07/15/south-china-sea-arbitration/ |archive-date=9 February 2018 |url=https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/07/15/south-china-sea-arbitration/ |title=Declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the EU on the Award rendered in the Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China  |publisher=European Council-Council of the European Union |date=15 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref><ref name=EU2023>{{cite web|url =https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/philippines/local-eu-statement-anniversary-award-rendered-arbitration-between-republic-philippines-and-peoples_en?s=176|title =Local EU Statement on the Anniversary of the Award rendered in the Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China on the South China Sea|date =11 July 2023|access-date =28 August 2024|archive-date =28 August 2024|archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20240828011335/https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/philippines/local-eu-statement-anniversary-award-rendered-arbitration-between-republic-philippines-and-peoples_en?s=176|url-status =live}}</ref> and [[ASEAN]]<ref name=aseanjointstatement>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115222343/https://asean.org/joint-statement-of-the-foreign-ministers-of-asean-member-states-and-china-on-the-full-and-efective-implementation-of-the-declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-china-sea-24-july-2016-vie/ |archive-date=15 November 2018|url=http://asean.org/joint-statement-of-the-foreign-ministers-of-asean-member-states-on-the-maintenance-of-peace-security-and-stability-in-the-region/|title=Joint Statement of the Foreign Ministers of ASEAN Member States on the Maintenance of Peace, Security, and Stability in the Region|date=25 July 2016|access-date=14 August 2016}}</ref>

;Supported ruling to be respected
{{col-list|colwidth=15em|
* {{flag|Australia}}<ref name=Australiastatement>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115214824/https://dfat.gov.au/news/news/Pages/australia-supports-peaceful-dispute-resolution-in-the-south-china-sea.aspx |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=https://dfat.gov.au/news/news/Pages/australia-supports-peaceful-dispute-resolution-in-the-south-china-sea.aspx |title=Australia supports peaceful dispute resolution in the South China Sea |publisher=Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade |date=12 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Austria}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|Belgium}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|Canada}}<ref name=Canadastatement>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127153107/https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2016/07/canadian-statement-on-south-china-sea-arbitration.html |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url=https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2016/07/canadian-statement-on-south-china-sea-arbitration.html |title=Canadian statement on South China Sea Arbitration |date=21 July 2016 |publisher=Minister of Foreign Affairs |access-date=27 January 2018 }}</ref>
* {{flag|Czech Republic}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|Denmark}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|Finland}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|France}}<ref name=G72022>{{cite web|url =https://www.state.gov/g7-foreign-ministers-statement/|title =G7 Foreign Ministers' Statement|access-date =28 August 2022|date =4 November 2022|archive-date =17 September 2024|archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20240917043131/https://www.state.gov/g7-foreign-ministers-statement/|url-status =live}}</ref>
* {{flag|Germany}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|Greece}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|India}}<ref name=meajuly2016>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115213018/https://mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl%2F27140 |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=https://mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/27140 |title=Closing Remarks by Minister of State for External Affairs Dr. V.K. Singh at the 14th ASEAN-India Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Vientiane (July 25, 2016) |publisher=Ministry of External Affairs |date=25 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018 |url-status=live  }}</ref><ref name=Wire/>
* {{flag|Ireland}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|Italy}}<ref name=G72022 />
* {{flag|Japan}}<ref name=Japanstatement>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115214358/https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_001204.html |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_001204.html |title=Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China regarding the South China Sea (Final Award by the Arbitral Tribunal) (Statement by Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida) |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan |date=12 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Netherlands}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|New Zealand}}<ref name=NZstatement>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115214549/https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-comment-south-china-sea-tribunal-ruling?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beehive-govt-nz%2Fportfolio%2Fforeign-affairs+%28Foreign+Affairs+-+beehive.govt.nz%29 |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-comment-south-china-sea-tribunal-ruling |title=NZ comment on South China Sea Tribunal ruling |publisher=New Zealand Government |date=13 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Philippines}}<ref>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160806093048/https://www.dfa.gov.ph/newsroom/dfa-releases/10072-information-note-on-the-significance-of-the-2016-asean-joint-communique-in-relation-to-the-arbitral-tribunal-ruling |archive-date=6 August 2016 |url=https://www.dfa.gov.ph/newsroom/dfa-releases/10072-information-note-on-the-significance-of-the-2016-asean-joint-communique-in-relation-to-the-arbitral-tribunal-ruling |title=Information Note on the Significance of the 2016 ASEAN Joint Communiqué in Relation to the Arbitral Tribunal Ruling |publisher=Department of Foreign Affairs |date=1 August 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Poland}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|Portugal}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|Romania}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|Slovakia}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|South Korea}}<ref name=GD23>{{cite web|access-date =27 August 2024|url =https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/08/18/the-spirit-of-camp-david-joint-statement-of-japan-the-republic-of-korea-and-the-united-states/|date =18 August 2023|title =The Spirit of Camp David: Joint Statement of Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States|archive-date =17 September 2024|archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20240917043140/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/08/18/the-spirit-of-camp-david-joint-statement-of-japan-the-republic-of-korea-and-the-united-states/|url-status =live}}</ref>
* {{flag|Spain}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|Sweden}}<ref name=EU2023 />
* {{flag|United Kingdom}}
* {{flag|United States}}<ref name=USAstatement>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160712123942/https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/07/259587.htm |archive-date=12 July 2016 |url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/07/259587.htm |title=Decision in the Philippines-China Arbitration |publisher=US Department of State |date=12 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
}}

;Positively acknowledged ruling without any calls for compliance
{{col-list|colwidth=15em|
* {{flag|Bosnia and Herzegovina}}<ref name=bosniaMVP>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115212248/http://www.mvp.gov.ba/aktuelnosti/saopstenja/default.aspx?id=34657&template_id=16&pageIndex=1 |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=http://www.mvp.gov.ba/aktuelnosti/saopstenja/default.aspx?id=34657&template_id=16&pageIndex=1 |title=Stav Bosne i Hercegovine o sporu u Južnom kineskom moru |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bosnia and Herzegovina |language=bs |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Bulgaria}}
* {{flag|Croatia}}
* {{flag|Cyprus}}
* {{flag|Estonia}}
* {{flag|Hungary}}
* {{flag|Indonesia}}<ref name=AMTI2023 />
* {{flag|Latvia}}
* {{flag|Lithuania}}
* {{flag|Luxembourg}}
* {{flag|Malaysia}}<ref name=MFAmalaysiaJuly2016>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115213452/http://www.kln.gov.my/web/guest/home?p_p_id=101&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_101_struts_action=%2Fasset_publisher%2Fview_content&_101_returnToFullPageURL=%2F&_101_assetEntryId=8393068&_101_type=content&_101_urlTitle=press-release-following-the-decision-of-the-arbitral-tribunal-on-the-south-china-sea-issue&redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kln.gov.my%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fhome%3Fp_p_id%3D3%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dmaximized%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26_3_redirect%3D%252F%26_3_keywords%3Dsouth%2Bchina%2Bsea%26_3_struts_action%3D%252Fsearch%252Fsearch&inheritRedirect=true |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=http://www.kln.gov.my/web/guest/home?p_p_id=101&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_101_struts_action=%2Fasset_publisher%2Fview_content&_101_returnToFullPageURL=%2F&_101_assetEntryId=8393068&_101_type=content&_101_urlTitle=press-release-following-the-decision-of-the-arbitral-tribunal-on-the-south-china-sea-issue&redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kln.gov.my%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fhome%3Fp_p_id%3D3%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dmaximized%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26_3_redirect%3D%252F%26_3_keywords%3Dsouth%2Bchina%2Bsea%26_3_struts_action%3D%252Fsearch%252Fsearch&inheritRedirect=true |title=PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ON THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ISSUE |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia |date=12 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Malta}}
* {{flag|Myanmar}}<ref name=MyanmarstatementJuly2016>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170828232916/http://www.mofa.gov.mm/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Press-Releases.pdf |archive-date=28 August 2017 |url=http://www.mofa.gov.mm/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Press-Releases.pdf |title=Myanmar's Statement on the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea under Annexure VII of UNCLOS |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs |date=13 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Singapore}}
* {{flag|Slovenia}}
* {{flag|Timor-Leste}}<ref name=AMTI2023 />
* {{flag|Vietnam}}<ref name=Vietnamstatementjuly2016>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115220646/http://www.mofa.gov.vn/en/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns160712211059 |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=http://www.mofa.gov.vn/en/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns160712211059 |title=Remarks of the Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam on Viet Nam's reaction to the issuance of the Award by the Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the arbitration between the Philippines and China |publisher=Vietnam Ministry of Foreign Affairs |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
}}

;Neutral
{{col-list|colwidth=15em|
* {{flag|Algeria}}<ref name=AlgeriaMFE>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115221921/http://www.mae.gov.dz/news_article/4183.aspx |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=http://www.mae.gov.dz/news_article/4183.aspx |title=Mer de Chine méridionale: l'Algérie appelle à une solution "sur la base du droit international" (MAE) |publisher=Ministre des Affaires Étrangères |date=16 July 2016 |language=fr |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Brunei}}
* {{flag|Cambodia}}
* {{flag|Laos}}
* {{flag|Serbia}}<ref name=serbiastatement>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115223010/http://www.mfa.gov.rs/en/press-service/statements/15517-serbia-advocates-a-peaceful-resolution-of-the-south-china-sea-issue |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=http://www.mfa.gov.rs/en/press-service/statements/15517-serbia-advocates-a-peaceful-resolution-of-the-south-china-sea-issue |title=Serbia advocates a peaceful resolution of the South China Sea issue |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia |date=12 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Thailand}}<ref name=Thailandstatement>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115222838/http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/media-center/14/68341-Statement-of-Thailand-on-Peace,-Stability-and-Sust.html |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/media-center/14/68341-Statement-of-Thailand-on-Peace,-Stability-and-Sust.html |title=Press Releases : Statement of Thailand on Peace, Stability and Sustainable Development in the South China Sea 12 July 2016 |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand |date=12 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
}}

;Opposed ruling
{{col-list|colwidth=15em|
* {{flag|China}}<ref name=fmprctribunal2016/>
* {{flag|Montenegro}}<ref name=montenegrostatement>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115223702/http://www.gov.me/naslovna/vijesti-iz-ministarstava/163193/Saopstenje-povodom-objavljivanja-presude-Stalnog-arbitraznog-suda-u-Hagu-o-sporu-izmedu-Kine-i-Filipina.html |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=http://www.gov.me/naslovna/vijesti-iz-ministarstava/163193/Saopstenje-povodom-objavljivanja-presude-Stalnog-arbitraznog-suda-u-Hagu-o-sporu-izmedu-Kine-i-Filipina.html |title=Saopštenje povodom objavljivanja presude Stalnog arbitražnog suda u Hagu o sporu između Kine i Filipina |publisher=Government of Montenegro |date=12 July 2016 |language=cnr |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Pakistan}}<ref name=Pakistanstatement>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115224004/http://www.mofa.gov.pk/pr-details.php?mm=MzkzMQ |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=http://www.mofa.gov.pk/pr-details.php?mm=MzkzMQ |title=Pakistan reiterates its support to Beijing on 'South China Sea' |date=12 July 2016 |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Russia}}
* {{flag|Sudan}}
* {{flag|Syria}}<ref name=sanajuly2016>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115223419/https://sana.sy/en/?p=83065 |archive-date=15 November 2018 |url=https://sana.sy/en/?p=83065 |title=Syria supports China's sovereignty over its territory in South China Sea |publisher=Syrian Arab News Agency |date=20 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018}}</ref>
* {{flag|Taiwan}}<ref name=ROCpositionruling>{{cite web |url=https://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=0E7B91A8FBEC4A94&sms=220E98D761D34A9A&s=5B5A9134709EB875 |title=ROC position on the South China Sea Arbitration |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of China (Taiwan) |date=12 July 2016 |access-date=15 November 2018 |archive-date=16 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181116043426/https://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=0E7B91A8FBEC4A94&sms=220E98D761D34A9A&s=5B5A9134709EB875 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* {{flag|Vanuatu}}
}}

====Statements from National governments====
* {{flag|Australia}}: On 15 July 2016, Australian [[Minister for Defence (Australia)|Minister for Defence]], [[Marise Payne]], and [[Minister for Foreign Affairs (Australia)|Minister for Foreign Affairs]], [[Julie Bishop]], stated that they regard the ruling "as final, and as binding", and urged all parties involved in the dispute to "abide by the ruling." The ministers also further described the court's ruling as "consistent" with the Australia's position on the matter.<ref>{{cite news | newspaper = The Guardian | title = South China Sea: Marise Payne says Julie Bishop right to warn Beijing | date = 15 July 2016 | author = Gareth Hutchens | url = https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/15/south-china-sea-marise-payne-says-julie-bishop-right-to-warn-beijing | access-date = 25 July 2016 | archive-date = 27 July 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160727023316/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/15/south-china-sea-marise-payne-says-julie-bishop-right-to-warn-beijing | url-status = live }}</ref>
* {{flag|Canada}}: On 21 July 2016, Canadian [[Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada)|Minister of Foreign Affairs]], [[Stéphane Dion]] stated "Whether one agrees or not with the ruling, Canada believes that parties should comply with it. All parties should seize this opportunity as a stepping stone to renewed efforts to peacefully manage and resolve their disputes, in accordance with international law.<ref name=Canadastatement/> Dion reiterated Canada's commitment to "the maintenance of international law and to an [[Liberal international economic order|international rules-based order]] for the oceans and seas" to resolve the dispute.<ref name=Blanchfield>{{cite web |last1=Blanchfield |first1=Mike |url=https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/21/canada-calls-on-parties-in-south-china-sea-dispute-to-comply-with-ruling.html |title=Canada calls on 'parties' in South China Sea dispute to comply with ruling |work=Toronto Star |date=21 July 2016 |access-date=27 January 2018 |archive-date=27 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127153505/https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/21/canada-calls-on-parties-in-south-china-sea-dispute-to-comply-with-ruling.html |url-status=live }}</ref> He also added " We are deeply concerned about regional tensions that have been escalating for a number of years and have the potential to undermine peace and stability. It is essential that all states in the region exercise restraint and avoid coercion and actions that will escalate tension".<ref name=Blanchfield/>
* {{flag|China}}: On 12 July 2016, China stated that it will not accept the ruling<ref name=Phillips/> and continued to pursue bilateral discussions with the Philippines.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=128}} The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated, "With regard to the award rendered on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the unilateral request of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitral Tribunal"), the [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China|Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China]] solemnly declares that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognises it."<ref name=fmprctribunal2016>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127155530/http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1379492.shtml |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url=http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1379492.shtml |title=Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China |access-date=27 January 2018}}</ref> Chinese President [[Xi Jinping]] stated that China's "territorial sovereignty and marine rights" in the seas would not be affected by the ruling.<ref name=Phillips/> He also stated that China was still committed to resolving the dispute with its neighbours.<ref name=Phillips/> On 13 July, Vice Foreign Minister [[Liu Zhenmin]] stated at a press conference that China had "taken note of the positive attitude of the new Philippine government under President Duterte toward resuming dialogue with China and progressing bilateral relationships from various aspects. We welcome this initiative with open arms."<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=128}}
* {{flag|India}}: On 12 July 2016, Indian ministry of external affairs stated that the country supports freedom of navigation, and urged all parties to demonstrate an utmost respect for the UNCLOS.<ref>{{cite news | title = South China Sea ruling a shot in the arm for India, a damning indictment of Beijing, say experts | author = Indrani Bagchi | newspaper = The Times of India | date = 12 July 2016 | url = http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/South-China-Sea-ruling-a-shot-in-the-arm-for-India-a-damning-indictment-of-Beijing-say-experts/articleshow/53180365.cms | access-date = 18 July 2016 | archive-date = 15 July 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160715103205/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/South-China-Sea-ruling-a-shot-in-the-arm-for-India-a-damning-indictment-of-Beijing-say-experts/articleshow/53180365.cms | url-status = live }}</ref> However, the change in India's posture was mentioned in a joint statement issued by India and the Philippines after the fifth Joint Commission on bilateral cooperation in July 2023. "They underlined the need for a peaceful settlement of disputes and for an adherence to international law, especially the UNCLOS and the 2016 Arbitral Award on the South China Sea in this regard."<ref name=Wire>{{Cite web|title=For the First Time, India Calls for Abiding by the 2016 Arbitral Award on South China Sea|url=https://thewire.in/diplomacy/for-the-first-time-india-calls-for-abiding-by-the-2016-arbitral-award-on-south-china-sea|access-date=2023-07-02|website=The Wire|archive-date=30 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230630072124/https://thewire.in/diplomacy/for-the-first-time-india-calls-for-abiding-by-the-2016-arbitral-award-on-south-china-sea|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{flag|Indonesia}}: On 13 July 2016, Indonesia called on all parties involved in the territorial dispute to exercise self-restraint and to respect [[UNCLOS|applicable international laws]].<ref>{{cite news | title = Indonesia's statement on South China Sea dissatisfying: China's experts | author = Liza Yosephine | newspaper = The Jakarta Post | location = Jakarta | date = 13 July 2016 | url = http://www.thejakartapost.com/seasia/2016/07/13/indonesias-statement-on-south-china-sea-dissatisfying-chinas-experts.html | access-date = 25 July 2016 | archive-date = 17 July 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160717114038/http://www.thejakartapost.com/seasia/2016/07/13/indonesias-statement-on-south-china-sea-dissatisfying-chinas-experts.html | url-status = live }}</ref>
* {{flag|Japan}}: On 16 July 2016, Japan stated that the arbitration court's ruling "is legally binding and must be respected by all parties," thus urged Beijing to respect and comply the ruling.<ref>{{cite news | date = 16 July 2016 | title = Abe calls on Li to abide by South China Sea ruling | author = Koya Jibiki | newspaper = Nikkei, Asian Review | url = http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Abe-calls-on-Li-to-abide-by-South-China-Sea-ruling | access-date = 25 July 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20161119174112/http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Abe-calls-on-Li-to-abide-by-South-China-Sea-ruling | archive-date = 19 November 2016 | url-status=dead}}</ref>
* {{flag|Malaysia}}: On 13 July 2016, Malaysia called for parties involved to exercise self-restraint to avoid escalating tension. The country Foreign Ministry said in a statement that "It is important to maintain peace, security and stability through the exercise of self-restraint in the conduct of activities that may further complicate disputes or escalate tension and avoid the threat or use of force in the South China Sea".<ref>{{cite news | work = ABS-CBN News | title = Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia react to S. China Sea ruling | date = 13 July 2016 | url = http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/07/13/16/malaysia-singapore-indonesia-react-to-s-china-sea-ruling | access-date = 8 September 2016 | archive-date = 31 August 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160831163132/http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/07/13/16/malaysia-singapore-indonesia-react-to-s-china-sea-ruling | url-status = live }}</ref>
* {{Flagicon|Pakistan}} [[Pakistan]]: On 12 July 2016, Pakistan supported the Chinese position, that the dispute in South China Sea should be peacefully resolved through bilateral negotiations. Pakistan rejected the ruling, calling it a "unilateral imposition of decisions on others".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Pakistan supports China's position on S. China Sea |url=https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/07/14/16/pakistan-supports-chinas-position-on-s-china-sea}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-11-15 |title=Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Islamabad, Pakistan |url=http://www.mofa.gov.pk/pr-details.php?mm=MzkzMQ |access-date=2023-09-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115224004/http://www.mofa.gov.pk/pr-details.php?mm=MzkzMQ |archive-date=15 November 2018 }}</ref>
* {{flag|Singapore}}: On 12 July 2016, Singapore urged that all parties involved in the South China Sea dispute to respect the legal and diplomatic processes.<ref>{{cite news | title = Singapore urges respect for court ruling on South China Sea | newspaper = Today online | date = 12 July 2016 | url = http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singapore-south-china-sea-ruling-reaction | access-date = 25 July 2016 | archive-date = 13 July 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160713184725/http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singapore-south-china-sea-ruling-reaction | url-status = live }}</ref>
* {{flag|South Korea}}: On 13 July 2016, South Korea stated that the country supports freedom of navigation and overflight in South China Sea, and support the peaceful means in resolving dispute according to international law.<ref>{{cite news | work = The Hankyoreh | title = [Analysis] Response on South China Sea ruling shows S. Korea's fragile position | date = 14 July 2016 | url = http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/752372.html | access-date = 25 July 2016 | archive-date = 18 July 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160718122120/http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/752372.html | url-status = live }}</ref>
* {{flag|Vietnam}}: On 12 July 2016, Vietnam immediately welcomed the arbitration tribunal ruling, thus announced that the country supports peace and order, also freedom of navigation and overflight in the region.<ref>{{cite news |title = Vietnam welcomes Hague ruling on East Vietnam Sea disputes: foreign ministry |work = Tuoi Tre News |date = 13 July 2016 |url = http://tuoitrenews.vn/politics/35827/vietnam-welcomes- |access-date = 25 July 2016 |archive-date = 21 July 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160721191908/http://tuoitrenews.vn/politics/35827/vietnam-welcomes- |url-status = live }}</ref>

==== Chinese public ====
The arbitration decision resulted in a large-scale outpouring of criticism from [[Internet in China|Chinese internet]] users.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=126}} From 1 July to 20 July 2016, over five million [[Microblogging in China|microblogs]] directly addressed the decision.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=126}} It was one of the most discussed topics online in China during this period.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=126}} The [[Weibo]] [[hashtag]] "China: not even a bit can be left behind" was re-blogged over 1.5 million times the evening it debuted.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=145}}<ref>{{Cite news |date=2016-07-13 |title=South China Sea: Chinese social media urges mango boycott |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-36780967 |access-date=2024-09-21 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}</ref> Numerous Chinese celebrities expressed support online for China's position, which in turn prompted a broader public response.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=145}} 

[[KFC in China|Kentucky Fried Chicken]] ("KFC") restaurants in Chinese cities became locations for [[Protest and dissent in China|public protests]].<ref name=":04">{{Cite book |last=Wang |first=Frances Yaping |title=The Art of State Persuasion: China's Strategic Use of Media in Interstate Disputes |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2024 |isbn=9780197757512 |doi=10.1093/oso/9780197757505.001.0001}}</ref>{{Rp|page=126}} Protestors denounced what they viewed as United States interference in China's sovereignty issues.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=126}} Viewing KFC as symbolic of American presence in China, the protestors called for a [[boycott]] of the restaurant chain.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=126}}

====United Nations====
The United Nations says it has no position regarding the legal or procedural merits of the case and the underlying disputes.
<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.asianews.network/content/arbitral-court-not-un-agency-22594 |title = Arbitral court not a UN agency |access-date = 24 July 2016 |quote = The United Nations said on Wednesday it has nothing to do with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which set up a tribunal that handled the South China Sea arbitration case the Philippines filed unilaterally in 2013. |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160716053028/http://www.asianews.network/content/arbitral-court-not-un-agency-22594 |archive-date=16 July 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/db160712.doc.htm |title = Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General |access-date = 20 July 2016 |quote = the UN doesn't have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the case or on the disputed claims. |archive-date = 18 July 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160718022235/http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/db160712.doc.htm |url-status = live }}</ref> On 12 July, the [[Secretary-General of the United Nations#List of secretaries-general|Secretary-General]] expressed his hope for continued consultations between [[ASEAN]] and China "under the framework of the Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/db160712.doc.htm |title=Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=12 July 2016 |website=United Nations |access-date=27 October 2020 |archive-date=12 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112040340/https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/db160712.doc.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

The UN's [[International Court of Justice]] says it has no involvement in the case.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en|title=International Court of Justice|access-date=24 July 2016|quote=The International Court of Justice (ICJ) wishes to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China) was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relevant information can be found on the PCA's website (www.pca-cpa.org). The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160714151430/http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en|archive-date=14 July 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>

====ASEAN====
At the 24 July 2016 China-ASEAN Foreign Ministers summit, China assured ASEAN that it would not conduct [[Land reclamation in China|land reclamation]] on the Scarborough Shoal.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=129}} The joint statement at the conclusion of the summit emphasized the implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and urged the parties to refrain from inhabiting currently unoccupied islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=129}} This functionally urged restraint on both China and the Philippines.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=129}} 

====Other reactions====

According to [[F-Secure]], hackers in 2016 infiltrated and extracted confidential information from the Philippines' Department of Justice and the international legal firm which had represented the Philippines at the Hague. The firm said the hack was likely backed by the Chinese government.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Gotinga |first1=JC |last2=Tan |first2=Lara |date=August 5, 2016 |title=Suspected Chinese malware used to spy on PH gov't – security firm |work=CNN Philippines |url=https://nine.cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/08/05/South-China-Sea-RAT-cyber-attack-Philippines.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190317205626/https://nine.cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/08/05/South-China-Sea-RAT-cyber-attack-Philippines.html |archive-date=March 17, 2019 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

Academic [[Graham Allison]] observed in 2016, "None of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international court's ruling when (in their view) it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests. Thus, when China rejects the Court's decision in this case, it will be doing just what the other great powers have repeatedly done for decades."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Zhao |first=Suisheng |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1331741429 |title=The dragon roars back : transformational leaders and dynamics of Chinese foreign policy |date=2023 |publisher=[[Stanford University Press]] |isbn=978-1-5036-3088-8 |location=Stanford, California |pages=109–110 |oclc=1331741429 |access-date=7 January 2023 |archive-date=5 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230905101326/https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1331741429 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Following the arbitration result, former Secretary-General of the Maritime and Oceans Affairs Center at the [[Department of Foreign Affairs (Philippines)|Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs]] Alberto Encomienda asserted that the Philippines government had lied when it stated that it had exhausted bilateral discussions prior to beginning the arbitration proceedings.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=138}} According to Encomienda, who had overseen the bilateral negotiations for the Philippines side prior to the arbitration proceedings, "Manila never responded" to repeated efforts by China to resume negotiating.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=138}} In Encomienda's view, the Philippines government was responsible for escalating tension on the South China Sea issues.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=138}}

====Philippine government====
Taking office on 30 June 2016,<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=123}} Philippines President [[Rodrigo Duterte]] hoped a non-confrontational approach to China could eventually lead to joint exploration of the South China Sea.<ref name="RANDOrg-Grossman2021">{{cite news |last1=Grossman |first1=Derek |date=November 2, 2021 |title=Duterte's Dalliance with China Is Over |url=https://www.rand.org/blog/2021/11/dutertes-dalliance-with-china-is-over.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211103014333/https://www.rand.org/blog/2021/11/dutertes-dalliance-with-china-is-over.html |archive-date=November 3, 2021 |work=The RAND Blog |publisher=[[RAND Corporation]] |language=en}}</ref> On 9 July, Duterte had met with the Chinese ambassador and agreed not make any provocative statements following the ruling and stated that if the Philippines won the arbitration, it would still be willing to address the issues bilaterally.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=123}}

Following the arbitration result, Foreign Secretary [[Perfecto Yasay Jr.]] welcomed the result and said it called for "restraint and sobriety".<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=123}}

On 8 August 2016, the Philippines dispatched former president [[Fidel V. Ramos]] to Hong Kong to mitigate tensions following the arbitration result.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=129}} Ramos met with [[Fu Ying]] (chair of China's [[Foreign Affairs Committee of the National People's Congress|Foreign Affairs Committee for the National People's Congress]]) and Wu Shicun (president of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies).<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=129}} Ramos conveyed the Philippines' willingness to engage in formal discussions with China.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=129}} The three issued a statement in their personal capacities emphasizing cooperation and dialogue between the two countries.<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=129}}

In April 2016, Duterte ordered the armed forces of the Philippines to occupy and fortify several uninhabited islands in the South China Sea in April 2017<ref>{{cite news|last1=Romero|first1=Alexis|last2=Felipe|first2=Cecille|last3=Laude|first3=Jaime|last4=Macairan|first4=Evelyn|title=Duterte orders AFP to occupy Philippine islands in South China Sea|url=http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/04/07/1688529/duterte-orders-afp-occupy-philippine-islands-south-china-sea|work=[[The Philippine Star]]|date=April 7, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170407013212/http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/04/07/1688529/duterte-orders-afp-occupy-philippine-islands-south-china-sea |archive-date=April 7, 2017}}</ref> and build structures on [[Benham Rise]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Balana|first1=Cynthia|last2=Uy|first2=Jocelyn|last3=Salaverria|first3=Leila|title=Duterte wants 'structures' built on Benham Rise|url=http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/880841/duterte-wants-structures-built-on-benham-rise|newspaper=[[Philippine Daily Inquirer]]|date=March 15, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170322184934/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/880841/duterte-wants-structures-built-on-benham-rise |archive-date=March 22, 2017}}</ref> A month later, he signed an executive order formally renaming Benham Rise to Philippine Rise.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Santos|first1=Eimor|title=Benham Rise is now Philippine Rise|url=http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/05/12/Benham-Rise-Philippine-Rise-protected-food-supply-zone-Pi%C3%B1ol.html|work=[[CNN Philippines]]|date=May 22, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170515125721/http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/05/12/Benham-Rise-Philippine-Rise-protected-food-supply-zone-Pi%C3%B1ol.html|archive-date=May 15, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> In May 2017, Duterte said Chinese president Xi Jinping had threatened war if the Philippines tried to enforce the arbitration ruling and drill for oil.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Mogato |first1=Manuel |title=Duterte says China's Xi threatened war if Philippines drills for oil |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-philippines-china-idUSKCN18F1DJ |work=[[Reuters]] |date=May 19, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170519130204/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-philippines-china-idUSKCN18F1DJ |archive-date=May 19, 2017 |language=en}}</ref>

In November 2018, the Philippines and China signed 29 agreements, including cooperation on the [[Belt and Road Initiative]] and a [[memorandum of understanding]] on joint oil-and-gas developments.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Musico |first1=Jelly |title=PH, China ink 29 deals during Xi's Manila visit |url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1054454 |work=[[Philippine News Agency]] |date=November 20, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181123115043/https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1054454 |archive-date=November 23, 2018 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Mendez |first1=Christina |last2=Romero |first2=Paolo |title=Philippines, China sign MOU on joint gas, oil {{as written|develo|{{sic|pement|nolink=y}}}} |url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/11/21/1870458/philippines-china-sign-mou-joint-gas-oil-developement |work=[[The Philippine Star]] |date=November 21, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181121022122/https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/11/21/1870458/philippines-china-sign-mou-joint-gas-oil-developement |archive-date=November 21, 2018}}</ref> In September 2019, Duterte said Xi had offered the Philippines a controlling stake in a gas deal in the [[Reed Tablemount|Reed Bank]] if the Philippines set aside the Hague ruling.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Petty |first1=Martin |title=Philippines' Duterte says Xi offering gas deal if arbitration case ignored |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-china-southchinasea-idUSKCN1VW07O |work=[[Reuters]] |date=September 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190911082108/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-china-southchinasea-idUSKCN1VW07O |archive-date=September 11, 2019 |language=en}}</ref>

By June 2020, Duterte was gradually distancing the Philippines from China.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Santos |first1=Tina G. |title=After pro-China pivot, Duterte warming ties with US – defense analyst |url=https://globalnation.inquirer.net/200192/after-pro-china-pivot-duterte-warming-ties-with-us-defense-analyst |newspaper=[[Philippine Daily Inquirer]] |date=November 11, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110223451/https://globalnation.inquirer.net/200192/after-pro-china-pivot-duterte-warming-ties-with-us-defense-analyst |archive-date=November 10, 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="RANDOrg-Grossman2021" /> In July that year, he called on the [[Department of Foreign Affairs (Philippines)|Department of Foreign Affairs]] to demand China recognize the arbitration ruling.<ref name="RANDOrg-Grossman2021" /> On 22 September 2020, during a speech at the UN, he said, "The award is now part of international law, beyond compromise and beyond the reach of passing governments to dilute, diminish, or abandon."<ref>{{cite web |last1= Strangio |first1= Sebastian | title= In UN Speech, Duterte Stiffens Philippines' Stance on the South China Sea |url= https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/in-un-speech-duterte-stiffens-philippines-stance-on-the-south-china-sea/| website= The Diplomat |date=23 September 2020 |access-date=27 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924205312/https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/in-un-speech-duterte-stiffens-philippines-stance-on-the-south-china-sea/| archive-date=24 September 2020 |url-status=live }}</ref>

== See also ==
{{Portal|Politics|Law|Transport|Asia|Philippines|China|Taiwan}}
* [[Baselines of the Chinese territorial sea]]
* [[Baselines of the Philippines]]
* [[Territorial disputes in the South China Sea]]
** [[Scarborough Shoal standoff]]
** [[Great Wall of Sand]]
* [[Island Chain Strategy]]
** [[First island chain]]
* [[East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration]]
* ''[[Nicaragua v. United States]]''
* ''[[Mauritius v. United Kingdom]]''
* [[List of irredentist claims or disputes]]

== References ==
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist}}
*{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gqOKE2aI5roC|last1=Valencia|first1=Mark J.|first2=Jon M.|last2=Van Dyke|first3=Noel A.|last3=Ludwig|title=Sharing the Resources of the South China Sea|year=1999|publisher=[[University of Hawaii Press]]|isbn=9780824818814}}

== Further reading ==
* Harriet Moynihan (2017) [https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/chinas-evolving-approach-international-dispute-settlement China's Evolving Approach to International Dispute Settlement], Chatham House

== External links ==
* {{cite web |url = https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf |title = The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China |publisher = [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]] |access-date = 14 February 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190129031833/https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf |archive-date = 29 January 2019 |url-status=dead }}
*''[https://sites.google.com/dfa.gov.ph/wpstest/home Not One Inch]'' microsite by the Philippine [[Department of Foreign Affairs (Philippines)|Department of Foreign Affairs]]

{{Clear}}
{{Philippine territorial disputes}}

[[Category:2013 in case law]]
[[Category:2013 in China]]
[[Category:2013 in the Philippines]]
[[Category:South China Sea]]
[[Category:Law of the sea]]
[[Category:China–Philippines relations]]
[[Category:Permanent Court of Arbitration cases]]
[[Category:Energy law]]
[[Category:History of the Philippines (1986–present)]]
[[Category:2016 in case law]]
[[Category:2016 in the Philippines]]
[[Category:2016 in China]]
[[Category:Xi Jinping]]
[[Category:Presidency of Benigno Aquino III]]
[[Category:Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte]]