2013 年 1 月 22 日，菲律賓依據聯合國海洋法公約第 15 部分第 287 條與 附件 7 之規定，片面對中國啟動關於南海海洋管轄權爭端的強制仲裁程序。 在中國聲明拒絕接受及參與此一程序的情況下，仲裁庭在 2015 年 10 月 29 日宣判對本案之管轄權成立，並於同年 11 月完成實質問題階段的開庭審理，預定 2016 年 6 月以前作出判決。菲律賓有計畫地設計對中國九段線及歷史性權利主張的法律戰，試圖瓦解中國的南海主張，對該主張的合法性帶來極大的壓力。本仲裁案對我國作為南海主張之一方的身分，以及太平島的島嶼地位，更帶來雙重的困境。本文建議，仲裁庭在審理《公約》第 121 條 第 3 項解釋以及太平島地位時，應謹慎考量一些菲律賓沒有注意到，但卻相關的問題。有鑒於本仲裁案恐對我國有不利的影響，現階段政府有必要繼續維持我國在太平島的存在，強化我國作為南海主張和利益當事者、的論述，並設法爭取最大的戰略利益。

On January 22 2013, Philippines unilaterally initiated compulsory arbitral procedure against China, in accordance with Part XV, Article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS ), concerning matters relating to their disputes over maritime jurisdiction in the South China Sea. China formally declared its objection against the procedure and refused to participate. Notwithstanding this circumstance, the Arbitral Tribunal established its jurisdiction on October 29 2015, and conducted hearings on merits in November. The award on merits is expected by June 2016. The Philippines has conducted a “lawfare” against China by deliberately formulated its submissions in such ways that the legal bases and validity of China’s Nine-dash Line and historic rights claims may be under serious threat. In addition, the arbitration has not only gravely undermined Taiwan’s identity as a claimant to the South China Sea, but also caused uncertainty to Itu Aba’s status as an “island”. These challenges could have a negative impact on Taiwan. It is suggested that the Tribunal should carefully consider relevant issues concerning the interpretation of Article 121(3)of UNCLOS and the legal status of Itu Aba, which have been omitted by the Philippines. Moreover, Taiwan should make sustained efforts in maintaining presence on the Itu Aba and advocating its identity as a claimant and stakeholder in the South China Sea, and try to maximize its strategic interests.