The 2016 ruling of the United Nations-backed Permanent Arbitration Court on the South China Sea dispute ruled on two issues. One, it specified the maritime entitlements of the Philippines, as the country requested in seeking PAC arbitration, in waters Manila calls the West Philippine Sea.
Two, the PAC went beyond the Philippine request and invalidated China’s maritime claim over nearly the entire South China Sea, based on a so-called nine-dash line that it drew on its own map after World War II. This means there is no legitimate basis, under international law, for China to build all those artificial islands that are now being fortified for military purposes in the South China Sea.
The PAC ruling was based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which both Manila and Beijing have ratified. The ruling specifically awarded the Philippines “sovereign rights” over Recto or Reed Bank, Ayungin or Saint Thomas Shoal and Panganiban or Mischief Reef. The ruling also declared that China violated Philippine rights when it prevented Filipino fishermen from entering Panatag or Scarborough Shoal, which the arbitral court classified as a common fishing ground.
There is no ambiguity in the PAC ruling, so the Philippine government cannot re-interpret it to mean that the two countries “co-own” the South China Sea. The PAC ruling specifically declared that there is no “legal basis” for the nine-dash line, which defines China’s maritime territorial claim.
Panganiban Reef in particular must be returned to the Philippines, and Panatag must have no country standing guard. If the Philippines cannot compel China to abide by an international ruling in which Manila obtained a resounding victory, the Duterte administration should at least refrain from rewarding Beijing for ignoring the ruling.
President Duterte has gone out of his way to cultivate friendship with the Chinese. If he expects that friendship to lead to Beijing’s respect for the PA C ruling, he should lead the way in abiding by the rules instead of setting them aside.