Following its jurisdictional decision in October 2015, the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the UNCLOS issued its final award on July 12, 2016 in the South China Sea Arbitration case. It found overwhelmingly in favor of the Philippines. This article comments on two of the flaws regarding the issue of jurisdiction arising from both preliminary and final awards of the case. It firstly calls into question the inconsistent standard adopted in identifying jurisdictional obstacles, and finds a projurisdictional bias in the Tribunal’s awards. It further analyses the fallacious approach of fragmenting the maritime delimitation disputes, and suggests the legal conundrum of status and entitlement of maritime features related to Sino-Philippine sea boundary delimitation should not constitute a separate dispute subject to legal proceedings. By purposefully downplaying jurisdictional obstacles and exercising powers on false disputes, the tribunal raises doubts to its legitimacy.

1. Introduction
 2. The Pro-Jurisdictional Bias in the Identification andCharacterization of the Dispute
  A. An Expansive Construction of Jurisdictional Mandates: Low-Threshold Access
  B. A Narrow Reading of Jurisdictional Exceptions: High-ThresholdBarrier
 3. The Tribunal’s Questionable Approach of FragmentingA Delimitation Dispute
  A. Application of Article 121 in Maritime Delimitation
  B. The Justiciability of Entitlement Claim in Overlapping Areas
 4. Conclusion

• Xiaoyi Zhang(Research fellow in China Institute for Marine Affairs (CIMA).)