2016 年7 月12 日中菲南海仲裁案仲裁庭公佈其判決，其中與中華民國最直接相關的就是太平島的法律地位，最終認定太平島為礁。然細繹仲裁庭推論，卻與先前國際司法實務與學者間見解大相逕庭。忽視聯合國海洋法公約（以下稱「公約」）第121條第3款條文文字關於島、礁定義的刻意模糊及國際學界對此仍未有定論。本案既係菲律賓於2013年按公約第15部分第287條及附件7規定啟動仲裁，旨在按公約第15 部分「爭端解決」規定，處理關於「公約解釋與適用」的爭端，而關於條約之解釋規則，1969年維也納條約法公約（以下稱條約法公約）第31 條、第32 條均定有明文，中國大陸及菲律賓均為條約法公約會員國，準此，本文擬順著仲裁庭的思維及論斷，按條約法公約所揭示條約解釋的要件，逐一檢視仲裁庭對公約第121條第3款的解釋與針對太平島的適用，並提出筆者看法。

On July 12, 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal that heard the arbitration case between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China rendered its final award, in which it opinioned that Taiping Island （Itu Aba）, the largest feature in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, is a "rock" and therefore not entitled the right to generate a 200—nautical— mile EEZ or continental shelf. Scrutinizing among the inference of the Arbitral Tribunal, the precedent of international jurisprudence and Scholarly Literature are nothing in common. The Arbitrators neglect the distinct text, such as an island and rocks, in article 121（3）of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with deliberately blurred and inconclusive. The case was initiated by the Philippines under the article 287, annex 7, Part XV, of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, for settling the dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which is submitted to it in accordance with this Part. Article 31 and 32 of Vienna Convention on the law of treaties provided the rules of treaty interpretation. The purpose of the article is to scrutinize the interpretation and application of Article 121（3）of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with respect to that Taiping Island（Itu Aba）. Finally, made concluding remark.