As much has been written and reported about the dispute since the case was originally brought in 2013, this is will not be repeated here. In result of the award, as might be expected, the Philippines is delighted (here and here). China is indignant (here and here). And Guam's Delegate to the US Congress is hoping China will show some respect.
In keeping to its multi-pronged playbook of aggression, the Chinese Ambassador to Australia has been granted space to issue an opinion in The Australian newspaper: Arbitration on the South China Sea dispute is fatally flawed
"The arbitration initiated by The Philippines is completely politically motivated. Its main purpose is to deny China’s sovereignty and ensuing rights and interests in the South China Sea. The decision of the tribunal, being null and void, has no binding force.
China rejects the award to safeguard not only its own lawful rights and interests under international law but also the integrity and authority of UNCLOS. China’s response is absolutely reasonable and legitimate.
More and more international legal experts have expressed their concerns and doubts about the case, and over 60 countries have registered in public their understanding and support for the Chinese position.
China has solid historical and legal basis for its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. The award will not in any way affect China’s sovereignty over the islands and reefs and its maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, nor will it shake China’s resolve to defend its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.
While China will not accept any claim or action based on the award, it remains committed to resolving the relevant disputes through negotiation and consultation with the countries directly concerned, on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law, with a view to maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea."
The Award, on the other hand, had quite a few things to say, including the selected and paraphrased few items following. (It is recommended that you first read, if you are not familiar with the language of the Law of the Seas, this article: REEFS, ROCKS, AND THE RULE OF LAW):
This arbitration concerns disputes between the Parties regarding the legal basis of maritime rights and entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain geographic features in the South China Sea, and the lawfulness of certain actions taken by China in the South China Sea. The Convention, however, does not address the sovereignty of States over land territory.
The basis for this arbitration is the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the “Convention” or “UNCLOS”). Both the Philippines and China are parties to the Convention, the Philippines having ratified it on 8 May 1984, and China on 7 June 1996. The Convention was adopted as a “constitution for the oceans,” in order to “settle all issues relating to the law of the sea,” and has been ratified by 168 parties. China is still a Party to the arbitration and, pursuant to the terms of Article 296(1) of the Convention and Article 11 of Annex VII, shall be bound by any award the Tribunal issues.
China’s land reclamation and/or construction of artificial islands, installations, and structures at Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, Subi Reef, and Mischief Reef do not constitute “military activities”, within the meaning of the Convention, in support of the Tribunal's jurisdiction over many claims. The dispute between China and the Philippines concerning the stand-off between the Philippines’ marine detachment on Second Thomas Shoal and Chinese military and paramilitary vessels involves “military activities”, depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction over a few claims. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider most of the matters raised in the Philippines’ claim, being Submissions No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14(d) and such claims are admissible.
China’s claims in the South China Sea do not include a claim to ‘historic title’. China’s claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the ‘nine-dash line’ are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention.
No maritime feature claimed by China within 200 nautical miles of Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal constitutes a fully entitled island for the purposes of the Convention and therefore that no maritime feature claimed by China within 200 nautical miles of Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal has the capacity to generate an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
As low-tide elevations, Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal do not generate entitlements to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, or continental shelf and are not features that are capable of appropriation.
Reed Bank is an entirely submerged reef formation that cannot give rise to any maritime entitlements.
As low-tide elevations, Subi Reef, Gaven Reef (South), and Hughes Reef do not generate entitlements to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, or continental shelf and are not features that are capable of appropriation, but may be used as the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea of high-tide features situated at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the territorial
sea.
Scarborough Shoal, Gaven Reef (North), McKennan Reef, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef, in their natural condition, are rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own, within the meaning of the Convention and accordingly Scarborough Shoal, Gaven Reef (North), McKennan Reef, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef generate no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
None of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands, in their natural condition, are capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of their own within the meaning of Article 121(3) of the Convention, thus do not generate entitlements to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf; and therefore there is no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf generated by any feature claimed by China that would overlap the entitlements of the Philippines in the area of Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal.
Indeed, Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are within the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines.
China has, through the operation of its marine surveillance vessels in relation to M/V Veritas Voyager on 1 and 2 March 2011 breached its obligations under Article 77 of the Convention with respect to the Philippines’ sovereign rights over the non-living resources of its continental shelf in the area of Reed Bank.
China has, by promulgating its 2012 moratorium on fishing in the South China Sea, without exception for areas of the South China Sea falling within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines and without limiting the moratorium to Chinese flagged vessels, breached its obligations under the Convention with respect to the Philippines’ sovereign rights over the living resources of its exclusive economic zone.
With respect to fishing by Chinese vessels at Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal: a. in May 2013, fishermen from Chinese flagged vessels engaged in fishing within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone at Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal; and b. China, through the operation of its marine surveillance vessels, was aware of, tolerated, and failed to exercise due diligence to prevent such fishing by Chinese flagged vessels; and c. therefore China has failed to exhibit due regard for the Philippines’ sovereign rights with respect to fisheries in its exclusive economic zone; thus, China has breached its obligations under the Convention.
Scarborough Shoal has been a traditional fishing ground for fishermen of many nationalities and China has, through the operation of its official vessels at Scarborough Shoal from May 2012 onwards, unlawfully prevented fishermen from the Philippines from engaging in traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal.
With respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the South China Sea: a. fishermen from Chinese flagged vessels have engaged in the harvesting of endangered species on a significant scale; b. fishermen from Chinese flagged vessels have engaged in the harvesting of giant clams in a manner that is severely destructive of the coral reef ecosystem; and c. China was aware of, tolerated, protected, and failed to prevent the aforementioned harmful activities; and therefore China has breached its obligations under the Convention.
With respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the South China Sea: a. China’s land reclamation and construction of artificial islands, installations, and structures at Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, Subi Reef, and Mischief Reef has caused severe, irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem; b. China has not cooperated or coordinated with the other States bordering the South China Sea concerning the protection and preservation of the marine environment concerning such activities; and c. China has failed to communicate an assessment of the potential effects of such activities on the marine environment, within the meaning of the Convention; and thus, China has breached its obligations under the Convention.
With respect to China’s construction of artificial islands, installations, and structures at Mischief Reef: a. China has engaged in the construction of artificial islands, installations, and structures at Mischief Reef without the authorisation of the Philippines even though Mischief Reef is within the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines; and therefore,
China has breached the Convention with respect to the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.
With respect to the operation of Chinese law enforcement vessels in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal: a. China’s operation of its law enforcement vessels on 28 April 2012 and 26 May 2012 created serious risk of collision and danger to Philippine ships and personnel; and b. China’s operation of its law enforcement vessels on 28 April 2012 and 26 May 2012 violated Rules of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; and thus China has breached its obligations under the Convention.
In addition, China has aggravated the Parties’ dispute concerning their respective rights and entitlements in the area of Mischief Reef; has aggravated the Parties’ dispute concerning the protection and preservation of the marine environment at Mischief Reef; has extended the scope of the Parties’ dispute concerning the protection and preservation of the marine environment to Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, and Subi Reef; and has aggravated the Parties’ dispute concerning the status of maritime features in the Spratly Islands and their capacity to generate entitlements to maritime zones, in consequence of which China has breached its obligations pursuant to the Convention, as well as pursuant to general international law, to
abstain from any measure capable of exercising a prejudicial effect in regard to the execution of the decisions to be given and in general, not to allow any step of any kind to be taken which might aggravate or extend the dispute during such time as dispute resolution proceedings were ongoing."
