Abstract
Since The Permanent Court of Arbitration issued its award on 12 July 2016 it have raised many controvertion. Almost all Submissions are decided in favour of the Philippines. The Award, as expected by many scholars, is not intended to solve the core dispute of the South China Sea ‘what maritime features belong to whom', since the very nature of this kind of dispute is not under the Tribunal competence. The sovereignty over disputed features shall be left to the claimant States for the resolution. Nevertheless, the Tribunal Award has not only clarified the dispute but also partially solve the core dispute. The legal clarification is expected to contribute to future negotiations among the claimant States concerning the core (sovereignty) dispute. This Article attempts to identify and describe what has been changed by the Tribunal Rulings and what has been solved. The implication of the Ruling on Indonesia's legal interest is also briefly discuss.
Highlights
The South China Sea dispute is a complex and proliferated dispute
Vietnam claims all the Spratly Islands based on historical discovery and colonial French inheritance
In a more specific determination, the Tribunal declares that some features, despite they are naturally formed areas of land, surrounded by water, which are above water at high tide, but they are in their natural conditions are rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own, within the meaning of Article 121(3)
Summary
The South China Sea dispute is a complex and proliferated dispute. The dispute is mainly about, and rooted in, overlapping claim over maritime features (islands, rocks, reefs) in the South China Sea by six countries bordering the South China Sea[1] i.e. China (including Taiwan), Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines. On 12 July 2016, Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Philippines and China (hereafter called “Tribunal’) issued a landmark Award concerning the South China Sea dispute. Despite the fact that China did not sit before the bench, the Tribunal has regarded whatever China’s official statements outside the Court rooms as official responds that constituted rebuttal to the Philippines submisions. The legal clarification is expected to contribute to future negotiations among the claimant States concerning the core (sovereignty) dispute This Article attempts to identify and describe what has been changed by the Tribunal Rulings and what has been solved. The implication of the Ruling on Indonesia’s legal interest is briefly discussed
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
