Arbitration Over, Time for China to Lead Responsibly By Aileen S.P. Baviera (written for Global Asia, September 2016) On July 12, 2016, the arbitral tribunal organized under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex VII, and registered at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, ruled on the complaint brought by the Philippines that China’s actions in the South China Sea had encroached on its maritime rights. The tribunal ruled largely in favor of Manila. In a decision that was proclaimed “final and binding,” it concluded that China’s nine‐ dashed line claim had no basis in law or historical fact, and that the features occupied by China and Taiwan were not legally “islands” and are therefore not entitled to large maritime zones of their own. This ruling significantly reduces the area under dispute to small features and narrow belts of water immediately surrounding those features. The court asserted that China acted contrary to law when it built Mischief Reef into an artificial island and prevented Filipino fishermen from accessing their traditional fishing grounds in Scarborough Shoal – both features within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ). By so doing, the tribunal upheld the Philippines’ sovereign rights to the waters and resources within its 200 n.m. EEZ limits under the UNCLOS. The tribunal also censured China for causing massive environmental damage to adjacent reefs due to its dredging and construction activities, which it undertook even while the area was subject to arbitration proceedings. Such actions constituted a violation of its obligations under UNCLOS to protect the marine environment; the fact that they took place while the areas under question were under litigation, moreover, demonstrated bad faith. China’s unequivocal position has been to reject the jurisdiction of the court and insist that only direct bilateral negotiations rather than third parties could provide solutions to the maritime disputes. It tried to undermine the credibility of the members of the arbitration panel and the integrity of the process itself, and severely criticized countries that declared support for the ruling or called for Beijing to comply. This has led some observers to question China’s commitment to international law.