Scribd
Upload
4K views3 pages

China v. Philippines Digest Adelson A. Jaugan

The Republic of Philippines filed an arbitration case against China under UNCLOS regarding their maritime rights claims in the South China Sea. The tribunal ruled it had jurisdiction and that China's nine-dash line claim exceeded its rights under international law. It found several reefs and shoals were rocks that did not generate maritime zones. It also ruled China had aggravated the dispute by building artificial islands and damaging coral reefs at Mischief Reef.

Uploaded by

BLACK mamba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4K views3 pages

China v. Philippines Digest Adelson A. Jaugan

The Republic of Philippines filed an arbitration case against China under UNCLOS regarding their maritime rights claims in the South China Sea. The tribunal ruled it had jurisdiction and that China's nine-dash line claim exceeded its rights under international law. It found several reefs and shoals were rocks that did not generate maritime zones. It also ruled China had aggravated the dispute by building artificial islands and damaging coral reefs at Mischief Reef.

Uploaded by

BLACK mamba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Sources:

https://www.philstar.com/other-sections/news-
feature/2016/07/13/1602470/how-hague-court-
ruled-philippiness-15-arguments

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/world/asia/so
uth-china-sea-philippines-hague.html

https://www.lawfareblog.com/tribunal-issues-
landmark-ruling-south-china-sea-arbitration

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304338
093_The_South_China_Sea_Arbitration_The_Philip
pines_v_China_Assessment_of_the_Award_on_Juris
diction_and_Admissibility

Republic of the Philippines


v. China Case Digest

FACTS:

The Republic of the Philippines(Philippines) instituted an arbitration case against the People’s
Republic of China(China) under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea(Convention or UNCLOS) since both parties have ratified the Convention. However, China
have consistently stated its view on the lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the matter.
The arbitration concerns disputed 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.

ISSUES:
1. WON the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
2. Whether China have claims under historical rights and the “nine- dash-line”
3. What is the status of features in the South China Sea?

RULING:

1. Article 288 of the Conventions states that “In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or
tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.”

2. With respect to Submission No. 1, for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal concludes that,
as between the Philippines and China, the Convention defines the scope of maritime
entitlements
in the South China Sea, which may not extend beyond the limits imposed therein. the Tribunal
concludes that, as between the Philippines and China, 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. The Tribunal concludes that the Convention
superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits
imposed therein.

3. Features that are above water at high tide generate an entitlement to at least a 12 nautical mile
territorial
sea, whereas features that are submerged at high tide do not. The Tribunal noted that the reefs
have been
heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention classifies
features on
their natural condition, and relied on historical materials in evaluating the features.

Article 121 establishes a regime of islands as follows:


Article 121 Regime of
Islands
1.An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is
above water at high tide.
2.Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone,
the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are
determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to
other land territory.
3.Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own
shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

The tribunal found that although there were evidence of transient habitation on the features,
Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, and Subi Reef
4. The Tribunal considers it beyond dispute that both Parties are obliged to comply with
the Convention, including its provisions regarding the resolution of disputes, and to respect
the rights and freedoms of other States under the Convention. Neither Party contests this,
and the Tribunal is therefore not persuaded that it is necessary or appropriate for it to make
any further
declaration.
there was no showing of permanent habitation that the features could support a stable
community therefore they are considered rocks. Thus, Having found that none of the
features claimed by China was capable
of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without
delimiting a
boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the
Philippines, because
those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.

CHINA’S AGGRAVATION

The Tribunal finds that China has, by virtue of the


conduct of Chinese law enforcement vessels in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal, created
serious risk of collision and danger to Philippine vessels and personnel. The Tribunal finds
China to have violated Rules 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the COLREGS and, as a consequence, to
be in breach of Article 94 of the Convention.

(a)China has aggravated the Parties’ dispute concerning their respective rights and
entitlements in the area of Mischief Reef by building a large artificial island on a low-tide
elevation located in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines.
(b) China has aggravated the Parties’ dispute concerning the protection and
preservation of the marine environment at Mischief Reef by inflicting permanent,
irreparable harm to the coral reef habitat of that feature.
(c) China has extended the Parties’ dispute concerning the protection and preservation of
the marine environment by commencing large-scale island-building and construction
works at Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes
Reef, and Subi Reef.
(d)China has aggravated the Parties’ dispute concerning the status of maritime features in
the Spratly Islands and their capacity to generate entitlements to maritime zones by
permanently destroying evidence of the natural condition of Mischief Reef.

You might also like