ARGUMENTS

The Philippines' case against China over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) boils
down to 5 basic arguments.
Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario outlined these claims on Tuesday, July 7,
the first day of arguments at The Hague.
For the oral hearings that run until July 13, we've listed these 5 arguments, quoted
verbatim from Del Rosario.
Below each argument, we've added our own notes to explain things in a nutshell. We've
also included links to other stories for further reading and reference.
The Philippines' arguments revolve around the right to fish, as well as to exploit other
resources, in the West Philippine Sea.
This right is based on the so-called Constitution for the Oceans, the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Under UNCLOS, a coastal state has the exclusive right to fish within its exclusive
economic zone (EEZ), an area 200 nautical miles from the coastal state's baselines or edges.
1. China's 'historical rights'
ARGUMENT: "First, that China is not entitled to exercise what it refers to as 'historic
rights' over the waters, seabed, and subsoil beyond the limits of its entitlements under
the Convention."
EXPLANATION: China says the South China Sea has belonged to it for centuries. This is
why it claims "historical rights" over the disputed sea.
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court, however, says
that "even if true," these historical rights have no bearing on sea disputes under
UNCLOS. Carpio explains that UNCLOS "extinguished all historical rights of other states."
This UN convention instead gives each coastal state an EEZ.
2. China's 9-dash line
ARGUMENT: "Second, that the so-called 9-dash line has no basis whatsoever under
international law insofar as it purports to define the limits of China’s claim to 'historic
rights.'"
EXPLANATION: The 9-dash line is China's demarcation to claim virtually the entire South
China Sea. China says this is based on its "historical rights."
The Philippines, however, asserts that the 9-dash line is baseless under UNCLOS. This UN
convention allows an EEZ, not a 9-dash line.
3. Rocks vs islands
ARGUMENT: "Third, that the various maritime features relied upon by China as a basis
upon which to assert its claims in the South China Sea are not islands that generate
entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Rather, some are 'rocks'
within the meaning of Article 121, paragraph 3; others are low-tide elevations; and still
others are permanently submerged. As a result, none are capable of generating
entitlements beyond 12NM (nautical miles), and some generate no entitlements at all.
China’s recent massive reclamation activities cannot lawfully change the original nature
and character of these features."
EXPLANATION: Under UNCLOS, habitable islands can generate a 200-nautical-mile EEZ.
Rocks cannot.
China describes some features in the South China Sea as islands. One of these is Panatag
Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), a rocky sandbar. China claims these supposed islands.
China also says these "islands" generate an EEZ, which could overlap with the EEZ of the
Philippines. The problem for the Philippines is, China declared in 2006 that it "does not
accept" arbitral jurisdiction when it comes to overlapping EEZs. UNCLOS allows this
exception.
This is partly why China says the tribunal at The Hague has no right to hear the
Philippine case – because it supposedly involves overlapping EEZs.
 "The maritime dispute between the Philippines and China boils down to whether there
are overlapping EEZs between the Philippines and China in the West Philippine Sea,"
Senior Associate Justice Carpio says.
Carpio, however, explains that "China has no EEZ that overlaps with the Philippines' EEZ
in the Scarborough area." Carpio also believes an international tribunal "will deny Itu
Aba," the largest island in the Spratlys, an EEZ.
The Philippines adds that China's reclamation activities cannot "lawfully change" rocks
into islands.
4. Breach of the law of the sea
ARGUMENT: "Fourth, that China has breached the Convention by interfering with the
Philippines’ exercise of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction."
EXPLANATION: China prevents Filipinos from fishing in the West Philippine Sea. UNCLOS,
on the other hand, gives Filipinos the exclusive rights to fish within the Philippines' EEZ
in the disputed waters.
5. Damage to environment
ARGUMENT: "China has irreversibly damaged the regional marine environment, in
breach of UNCLOS, by its destruction of coral reefs in the South China Sea, including
areas within the Philippines’ EEZ, by its destructive and hazardous fishing practices, and
by its harvesting of endangered species."
EXPLANATION: China is building artificial islands in the West Philippine Sea. The
Philippines says China's reclamation activities have buried 311 hectares of coral reefs –
around 7 times the size of Vatican City. This can mean P4.8 billion ($106.29 million) in
lost economic benefits. At the same time, China is accused of poaching.
China, for its part, refuses to answer the Philippines' arguments in arbitration proceedings. It
has instead published a position paper debunking the Philippines' claims.
In the end, the Philippines says, the case at The Hague is set to provide a long-term solution to
the sea dispute. For Del Rosario, UNCLOS provisions "allow the weak to challenge the powerful
on an equal footing, confident in the conviction that principles trump power; that law triumphs
over force; and that right prevails over might."
 HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE

The Scarborough Shoal standoff refers to tensions between China (PRC) and
the Philippines which began on April 8, 2012 over the Philippine Navy apprehension of eight
mainland Chinese fishing vessels in the disputed Scarborough Shoal.

On April 8, 2012, a Philippine Navy surveillance plane spotted eight Chinese fishing
vessels anchored in the waters of Scarborough shoal. BRP Gregorio del Pilar was sent on the
same day by the Philippine Navy to survey the vicinity of the shoal, and confirmed the presence
of the fishing vessels and their ongoing activities. On April 10, 2012, BRP Gregorio del Pilar came
to inspect the catch of the fishing vessels. The Filipino inspection team claimed that they
discovered illegally collected corals, giant clams and live sharks inside the first vessel boarded
by the team. BRP Gregorio del Pilar reported that they attempted to arrest the Chinese
fishermen but were blocked by Chinese maritime surveillance ships, China Marine Surveillance
75 (Zhongguo Haijian 75) and China Marine Surveillance 84 (Zhongguo Haijian 84). Since then,
tensions have continued between the two countries.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is an intergovernmental
organization created by the mandate of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the
Sea, with responsibility for the regulation of seabed mining beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction, and with the power to settle disputes between party states.
In June 2013 the Philippines decided to bring the territorial row before the ITLOS after it
had "exhausted all political and diplomatic avenues for a peaceful negotiated settlement of its
maritime dispute with China", saying that it would ask the tribunal to declare China's claims as
"invalid". China formally rejected the arbitration proceedings initiated by the Philippines.
According to Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),
however, China's refusal would not necessarily impede the proceedings.
In February 2014 it was reported that China had offered mutual withdrawal from the shoal and
other inducements if the Philippines would refrain from submitting a formal pleading, and that
the Philippine position was, "With what's on the table, there's not enough.