PART IV: Submissions No. 8-10
MANUEL, John Patrick A.
Host: At this point, the lecture will provide you
with the background of the activities of the
PRC in the WPS and the implication of these
documented activities which eventually led
to the submission of a legal action. This part
of the lecture will discuss the submissions
eight to thirteen.
Host: We start with submission number eight. As
backgrounder on the case, Submission No. 8
discusses the documents adduced by the
Philippines recording several incidents since
2010 in which China has acted to prevent the
Philippines from exploiting the non-living
and living resources in the waters that lie
within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines’
baselines and China’s alleged interference
with living resources. The bulleted points
sum up these activities complained of by the
Philippines against China as in a way an
infringement in the sovereignty of the
Philippines.
Host: In invoking these cases, the Philippines
asserted its jurisdiction over the disputed
areas. According to the Philippines, the only
limitation on the Philippines’ entitlement to
an EEZ and continental shelf is to the extent
that any nearby maritime features claimed
by China might generate overlapping
GACA, Angieline M.
PAR, Raiza
Display Chinese activities in the West Philippine Sea
: (Submissions 8 to 13)
8. ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH THE PHILIPPINES’
SOVEREIGN RIGHTS IN ITS EEZ AND CONTINENTAL
SHELF
9. ALLEGED FAILURE TO PREVENT CHINESE
NATIONALS FROM EXPLOITING THE PHILIPPINES’
LIVING RESOURCES
10. CHINA’S ACTIONS IN RESPECT OF TRADITIONAL
FISHING AT SCARBOROUGH SHOAL
11. ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
12. OCCUPATION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
ON MISCHIEF REEF
13. OPERATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT VESSELS
IN A DANGEROUS MANNER
Submission No. 8
(a)Actions regarding Non-Living Resources
i. Petroleum Blocks at Reed Bank and the M/V
Veritas Voyager Incident;
ii. The West Calamian Petroleum Block;
iii. The North-West Palawan Petroleum Blocks
(b) Alleged Interference with Living Resources
i. China’s Prevention of Fishing by Philippine
Vessels at Mischief Reef;
ii. China’s Extension of Jurisdiction over Fisheries in
the South China Sea
iii. China’s Prevention of Fishing by Philippine
vessels at Second Thomas Shoal
The Philippines’ Rights in the Exclusive Economic
Zone
PART IV: Submissions No. 8-10 GACA, Angieline M.
MANUEL, John Patrick A.
PAR, Raiza

entitlements.”

The Philippines submits that there are no

maritime features in the South China Sea
claimed by China that can generate
entitlements to an exclusive economic zone
in the areas relevant to its Submission No. 8.
For the Philippines, “all of the incidents . . .
fall within areas that are indisputably
Philippines’ EEZ and continental shelf,” and
no issue of maritime delimitation is
implicated.
The Philippines further asserted in the claims “China’s interference with oil and gas exploration
that “the waters, seabed and subsoil of the and exploitation, and the measures adopted to
South China Sea within 200 M of the prevent fishing in the Philippines’ EEZ and
Philippine coast, but beyond 12 M from any continental shelf, constitute . . . continuing
high-tide feature within the South China Sea, violations of . . . Articles 56, 58, 61, 62, 73, 77 and
constitute the EEZ and continental shelf of 81” of the UNCLOS”
the Philippines” under Articles 57 and 76 of
the Convention because none of the
maritime features claimed by China
“generates entitlement to an EEZ or
continental shelf.”
Meanwhile, People’s Republic of China in its China’s Position
response, did not directly stated its position
with respect to the allegations presented in
the Philippines’ Submission No. 8.
Nevertheless, China’s position can be
discerned from its public statements at the
time of the incidents in question.
With respect to the Philippines’ petroleum (a) Regarding the GSEC101 contract at Reed
exploration, it is apparent that China Bank, China stated that “China has indisputable
considers that it—and not the Philippines— sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction over
has rights in the areas in question: (read the Nansha Islands and its adjacent waters.
slides) The so-called ‘GSEC101’ is situated in the waters of
China’s Nansha Islands.”

(b) Regarding the SC58 contract, China is

recorded as having stated that “Service Contract
54, 14, 58, 63, and other nearby service contracts
are located ‘deep within China’s 9-dash line.’ China
considers the Philippines as violating and
encroaching on China’s sovereignty and sovereign
rights in these areas.”

(c) And, regarding the Area 3 and Area 4

PART IV: Submissions No. 8-10
The Tribunal noted that this is not a dispute
concerning sovereignty, nor is it barred from
the Tribunal’s consideration.
The Tribunal also found that the dispute at
issue in Submission No. 8 does not concern
the delimitation of maritime boundaries.
The Tribunal noted that the premise of
Submission No. 8 is “that no overlapping
entitlements exist because only the
Philippines possesses an entitlement to an
exclusive economic zone in the relevant
areas.” The Tribunal is not asked to delimit
overlapping entitlements in the areas in
question. Rather, its jurisdiction is
contingent on the absence of any possible
overlap.
There is thus no maritime feature in the
Spratly Islands that is capable of generating
an entitlement to an exclusive economic
zone or continental shelf in the areas of
Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal, or in
the areas of the GSEC101 block, Area 3, Area
4, or the SC58 block.
The Tribunal has also found (see paragraphs
374 to 381 above) that Mischief Reef and
Second Thomas Shoal are low-tide elevations
and, as such, generate no entitlement to
maritime zones of their own.
As to the conclusions: (read slides)
There is thus no situation of overlapping
entitlements that would call for the
application of Articles 15, 74, or 83 to delimit
the overlap and no possible basis for the
application of the exception to jurisdiction in
Article 298(1)(a)(i)
The Philippines’ allegations in respect of this
Submission concern developments at
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal,
both of which are low-tide elevations lying
GACA, Angieline M.
MANUEL, John Patrick A.
PAR, Raiza
tender, China stated that “AREA 3 and AREA 4 are
situated in the waters of which China has historic
titles including sovereign rights and jurisdiction.”
The Tribunal’s Considerations
(a) The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction
(b) China’s Actions and the Philippines’
Sovereign Rights
(c) Conclusion
(a) The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction
Had the Tribunal found that another maritime
feature claimed by China within 200 nautical miles
of the relevant areas were a fully entitled island for
purposes of Article 121 of the Convention and
capable of generating an entitlement to an
exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, it
would necessarily have had to decline jurisdiction
over the dispute.
The Tribunal has found, however that there is no
legal basis for any Chinese historic rights, or other
sovereign rights and jurisdiction beyond those
provided for in the Convention.
Reed Bank (the area of the GSEC101 block) is an
entirely submerged reef formation that cannot
give rise to maritime entitlements. Nor is there any
high-tide feature claimed by China within 12
nautical miles of Area 3, Area 4, or the SC58 block
that could generate an entitlement to a territorial
sea in those areas.
there exists no legal basis for any entitlement by
China to maritime zones in the area of Mischief
Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, the GSEC101 block,
Area 3, Area 4, or the SC58 block;
Submission No. 9
ALLEGED FAILURE TO PREVENT CHINESE
NATIONALS FROM EXPLOITING THE PHILIPPINES’
PART IV: Submissions No. 8-10
within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines’
baselines.
The Philippines’ allegations in respect of this
Submission concern developments at
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal,
both of which are low-tide elevations lying
within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines’
baselines.
The Philippines’ invoked the following
arguments (read slide).
Pursuant to Article 56 of the Convention, the
Philippines argues, “States have an
obligation, acting in good faith, to take the
measures necessary to prevent their
nationals from exploiting the living resources
in the EEZ of another State party.” 749 In the
Philippines’ view, the scope of this duty
“extends to such actions as are reasonably
necessary to give full effect to the exclusive
rights of the coastal State conferred by
Article 56.”750
China has never directly addressed the
allegation that it has unlawfully permitted its
fishermen to fish within the Philippines’
exclusive economic zone at Second Thomas
Shoal or Mischief Reef.
In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal
deferred any final decision with respect to
its jurisdiction concerning the Philippines’
Submission No. 9, for the same reason that it
deferred consideration of its jurisdiction
with respect to the Philippines’ Submission
No. 8.
The relevant areas can only constitute the
exclusive economic zone of the Philippines.
GACA, Angieline M.
MANUEL, John Patrick A.
PAR, Raiza
LIVING RESOURCES
Starting 03 May 2013, China maintained the
presence of at least two (2) vessels at Ayungin
Shoal [Second Thomas Shoal]. Since then, two (2)
PLA Navy frigates (BN 562 and 563) and five (5)
CMLEA vessels (CMS BN 84, 167, 75, 71 and 8002)
have been monitored deployed in the shoal and its
outlying areas on a rotation basis.742
The Philippines’ Position
The Philippines submits that the Tribunal has
jurisdiction to consider its Submission No. 9, for
the same reasons set out with respect to its
Submission No. 8.
China has violated its obligations under Article 56
of the Convention to respect the sovereign rights
and jurisdiction of the Philippines by failing to
prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting
the living resources of the Philippines’ exclusive
economic zone.
China has established de facto control over areas
of the South China Sea, it has acted to prevent
fishing by Philippine vessels, while tolerating
fishing by Chinese nationals and vessels, including
in areas that comprise the Philippines’ exclusive
economic zone.
China’s Position
China possesses indisputable sovereignty over
Nansha Islands and its adjacent waters, and the
construction, usage and other activities at the
relevant islands, reefs, shoals and sands are actions
completely within the scope of China’s sovereignty,
sovereign rights and jurisdiction.
The Tribunal’s Considerations
Tribunal considered that its jurisdiction over these
Submissions was contingent on whether Mischief
Reef and Second Thomas Shoal were low-tide
elevations and whether any other feature claimed
by China is capable of generating an entitlement to
an exclusive economic zone in the area of those
features that would overlap the entitlement of the
Philippines.
The Law Applicable to China’s Supervision of its
Fishing Vessels
PART IV: Submissions No. 8-10
Accordingly, the Philippines—and not China
—possesses sovereign rights with respect to
resources in these areas, and the law
relevant to Chinese fishing activities at these
reef formations is the law governing fishing
by the vessels of one State in the exclusive
economic zone of another.
Despite these limitations, the Tribunal is
prepared to accept that the account of
events provided by the Armed Forces of the
Philippines is accurate and that Chinese
fishing vessels, accompanied by the ships of
CMS, were engaged in fishing at both
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal in
May 2013. It does so for two reasons.
GACA, Angieline M.
MANUEL, John Patrick A.
PAR, Raiza
The Tribunal has held that Mischief Reef and
Second Thomas Shoal are low-tide elevations
located within areas where only the Philippines
possesses possible entitlements to maritime zones
under the Convention.
The Activities of Chinese Fishing Vessels at
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal
Tribunal notes that it has limited evidence before
it. The record of Chinese fishing at these features is
restricted to reports from the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and confined to a single period in May
2013.
Conclusion
Tribunal finds that China has, through the
operation of its marine surveillance vessels in
tolerating and failing to exercise due diligence to
prevent fishing by Chinese flagged vessels at
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal in May
2013, failed to exhibit due regard for the
Philippines’ sovereign rights with respect to
fisheries in its exclusive economic zone.
Accordingly, China has breached its obligations
under Article 58(3) of the Convention.
PART IV: Submissions No. 8-10 GACA, Angieline M.
MANUEL, John Patrick A.
PAR, Raiza