South China Arbitration Case

PCA Case No. 2013-19

Facts:
The South China arbitration case was brought by the Philippines against China under Article VII of
the UNCOLOS in regards to territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In 2013, China declared that
it would not participate in the arbitration and published a white paper to elaborate its position and
argued that the dispute was not subject to arbitration as it was a matter of sovereignty and not
exploitation rights. In 2015, Arbitral Tribunal rules jurisdiction over the case and took 7 of the 15
submissions made by the Philippines. The country sought ruling on the source of the Parties’ rights
and obligations in the South China Sea and the effect of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (“Convention”) on China’s claims to historic rights within its so-called ‘nine-dash line’. On
the other hand, the Philippines claims rights based on geographical proximity and argued that China’s
"historic" rights are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect as they exceed the limits
expressly permitted by UNCLOS They also sought ruling on the status of features and islands on the
South China Sea and whether certain Chinese actions in the South China Sea violated UNCLOS by
interfering with the Philippines’ rights and freedoms within its EEZs.

Issue: a.) Whether or not China’s claim to the nine-dash line is valid? b.) Whether certain
features in the South China Sea constitute and exclusive economic zone? c.) Whether or not
China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights?

Held
1. On the Nine Dash Line and China's Claim to Historic Rights in the Maritime Areas of the
South China Sea
- The Tribunal found that China’s claim to historic rights to resources violated the allocation of
rights and maritime zones in the Convention and concluded that, the historic rights to
resources were extinguished by the entry into force of the Convention as they were
incompatible with the Convention’s system of maritime zones.

2. Status of Features in the South China Sea

- Under Articles 13 and 121 of the Convention, 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 generate no entitlement to maritime zones. It was found that none of
the features of the Spratly Islands generate an exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) nor can the
Spratly Islands collectively generate the same. As such, the Tribunal declared certain areas
are within the Philippines’ EEZ and not overlapped by any possible Chinese entitlement.

3. Chinese Activities in the South China Sea

- The Tribunal concluded that the China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights with
respect to its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. It found that China had (a)
interfered with Philippine petroleum exploration at Reed Bank, (b) prohibited fishing by
Philippine vessels within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, (c) protected and failed to
prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone at
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal, and (d) constructed installations and artificial
islands at Mischief Reef without the authorization of the Philippines.

China also violated Article 94 of the Convention regarding maritime safety when two Chinese
vessels sought to physically obstruct Philippine vessels from entering the Scarborough Shoal