On July 12, 2016, an Arbitral Tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued an award in the South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China), wherein it unanimously rejected many of China’s sovereignty claims in the South China Sea. The law governing the dispute is found in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a treaty that both parties have ratified. The Philippines instituted the proceedings under Annex VII of the Convention. According to the press release, the Tribunal made clear that “it does not rule on any question of sovereignty over land territory and does not delimit any boundary between the Parties.” In a position paper, China rejected the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and expressed its refusal to participate in the arbitration. The Tribunal found jurisdiction pursuant to Article 288 of the Convention, which provides that “[i]n the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.” Moreover, Article 9 of Annex VII to the Convention stipulates that the “[a]bsence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings.” On the merits, the Tribunal found that even if China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights disappeared if they were incompatible with the regime of exclusive economic zones (EEZ) established by the Convention. The Tribunal also found that China’s claims to historic rights within its “nine-dash line” were without legal basis. Additionally, the Tribunal concluded that the Spratly Islands do not generate an EEZ or a continental shelf because they cannot, in their natural condition, sustain a stable community of people or economic activity that is not dependent on outside resources or purely extractive in nature. Moreover, the Tribunal found that certain areas are within the Philippines’ EEZ because they are not overlapped by any possible claim by China. The Tribunal then found that China violated the Philippines’ EEZ by interfering with its fishing and petroleum exploration, by building artificial islands, and by failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing therein. The Tribunal also concluded that China caused severe harm to the marine environment with its construction of artificial islands and land reclamation projects in the Spratly Islands. Finally, the Tribunal found that China’s actions since the beginning of the proceedings breached its obligation to not aggravate the dispute during the pendency of the settlement process. Pursuant to Article 296 of the Convention and Article 11 of Annex VII, the award is final and binding on the parties.