Why our victory in the Permanent Court of Arbitration is relevant

On July 12, nine years ago, the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued its final ruling on the case filed by the Philippines against China regarding maritime disputes in the South China Sea. Here is the tribunal's decision:

- ANDREW J. MASIGAN

First, the tribunal rejected China's claim to historic rights over the South China Sea. It concluded that any historic rights China may have had were extinguished when it ratified UNCLOS. Therefore, the "nine-dash line" has no legal effect.

Second, the tribunal ruled that the 11 features (rock formations) in the West Philippine Sea do not qualify as "islands" since they are incapable of sustaining human habitation or economic life. This means the country that has legal claims over these rocks or low-tide elevation cannot claim the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around them.

Third, that China violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in the following ways: it interfered with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration; it constructed artificial islands in the Philippines' EEZ; it failed to prevent Chinese fishermen from engaging in illegal fishing in the Philippines' EEZ.

Fourth, that China damaged the environment and caused irreparable harm to the ecosystem. It did so by large-scale reclamation, destruction of coral reefs and by harvesting endangered species. Destroying the environment is a violation of UNCLOS obligations.

Fifth, that China escalated tensions during the legal proceedings by continuing its reclamation and construction activities, by harassing Philippine fishermen and naval vessels and by interfering with Philippine law enforcement.

Sixth, that China unlawfully prevented Filipino fishermen from accessing traditional fishing grounds around Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal, violating both UNCLOS and traditional fishing rights.

Seventh, that there is no overlapping of EEZs between China and the Philippines that justifies China's activities within Philippine EEZ.

What was China's reaction to the Court's decision?