Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RP V China Digest PDF
RP V China Digest PDF
Case Digest
FACTS:
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
4. WON the activities of China in the South China Sea is lawful.
5. WON the actions of China since the commencement of arbitration
have aggravated and extended the dispute.
6. What is China’s future conduct?
RULING:
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 The Tribunal concludes that the Convention superseded any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.
The tribunal found that although there were evidence of transient habitation on the features, 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.
5. yes, it has.
(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, Cuarteron
Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, and Subi Reef.
6.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.