NEXT SLIDE PLEASE

Alleged Failure to Protect and Preserve the Marine Environment

This dispute is reflected in the Philippines’ Submission No. 11, on which China has violated its obligations under the
Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal,
Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef; and Submission No. 12
concerning environmental harm from China’s construction at Mischief Reef:

On the PH position, China’s actions have damaged the diverse and fragile ecosystem of the South China Sea. The
Philippines states that if China’s activities remain unchecked, it will continue to pose a significant threat to the
marine environment of the South China Sea, and of all the states which border the Sea.

The Philippines’ allegations concerning China’s environmental violations relates in harmful fishing practices,
harmful construction activities and Interpretation and Application of Part XII of the Convention.

The Philippines highlights five relevant obligations under Part XII of the Convention which China violates:

i. To protect and preserve marine ecosystems - “creating artificial islands out of coral reefs is the worst
possible way to treat these fundamental ecological building blocks.”
ii. To ensure sustainable use of biological resources – blast fishing and the use of cyanide are wasteful and
unsustainable
iii. To protect and preserve endangered species - the harvesting of giant clams under the protection of
Chinese authorities
iv. To apply a precautionary approach in all of these respects
v. To consult and cooperate with the relevant coastal States –there is little evidence of genuine Chinese
cooperation on matters of environmental protection in the South China Sea

China claims that the construction activities had gone through scientific assessments and rigorous tests, taking into
full consideration the protection of ecological environment and fishing resources. The “main purpose” of the
construction activities is to meet various civilian demands and better perform China’s international obligations and
responsibilities in the areas such as ecological environment conservation.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE

Occupation and Construction Activities on Mischief Reef

This dispute is reflected in the Philippines’ Submission No. 11, which provides China’s occupation of and
construction activities on Mischief Reef that (a) violates the provisions of the Convention concerning artificial
islands, installations and structures; and (b) constitutes unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in violation of the
Convention.

On the PH position, China’s activities violates Articles 60 and 80 of the UNCLOS relating to artificial lands,
installations and structures, and constitute unlawful acts of attempted appropriation under the Convention.

Military Activities and the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction - China repeatedly told the Philippines that the facilities at
Mischief Reef were being built for civilian use; PH argues that any “fleeting intimation of a concurrent defense
purpose falls far short of a characterization of the activities as military.”

Articles 60 and 80 of the Convention - Under Article 60, coastal States enjoy the “exclusive right” to authorize
or regulate the construction of structures, a principle that is extended to the continental shelf by virtue of Article
80. PH notes that Mischief Reef is located within 200M of Palawan and not within 200M of any other feature
claimed by China that is capable of generating an EEZ or a continental shelf.

Attempted Appropriation under the Convention - The PH contends that China’s construction of artificial
islands, installations, and other structures constitute acts of attempted and unlawful appropriation. This is because
of China’s assertions of sovereignty over the reef and the presence of China’s flag.

In response, China maintains that the structures are not military; they are wind shelters and Chinese fishermen
have long used Mischief Reef as wind shelter. China explained that it is nothing serious for the Chinese side to
construct some wind sheltering facilities for peaceful purposes and that some people just exaggerated by saying
that the Chinese are constructing a military facility. China explained further that the “so-called radar facilities”
were nothing but television satellites to enable the personnel on the reef to watch TV programs.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE

Operation of Law Enforcement Vessels in a Dangerous Manner

This dispute is reflected in the Philippines’ Submission No. 13, which requests a declaration that China has
breached its obligations under the Convention by operating its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner
causing serious risk of collision to Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal;

In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal held that Submission No. 13 “reflects a dispute concerning the operation
of China’s law enforcement activities in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal and the application of Articles 21, 24, and
94 of the Convention.”

The facts underlying the present Submission concern interactions between Chinese law enforcement vessels and
Philippine coast guard and surveillance ships on 28 April 2012 and on 26 May 2012.

The Philippines alleges that China has operated its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner, causing
“serious risk of collision” to Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal. In consequence, the
Philippines submits that China has breached its obligations relating to safe navigation under Articles 94 and 21 of
the Convention and related provisions in the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing of
Collisions at Sea, (the “COLREGS”).

China replied that “it does not accept the contents” of the Philippines’ notes and asserted that the conduct of its
vessels was justified. China stated:

The various jurisdiction measures adopted by the Chinese government over Huangyan Island [Scarborough Shoal]
and its waters, and activities by Chinese ships, including government public service ships and fishing boats, in
Huangyan Island and its waters are completely within China’s sovereignty.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE

Aggravation or Extension of the Dispute between the Parties

This dispute is reflected in the Philippines’ Submission No. 14. The Tribunal separately addressed (i) the events that
occurred in and around Second Thomas Shoal, and (ii) China’s various construction activities at Mischief Reef,
Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, and Subi Reef.

Chinese Actions in and around Second Thomas Shoal – On 9 March 2014, two China Coast Guard vessels
intercepted two Philippine vessels, which had been dispatched by the Philippines to conduct rotation and resupply
operations for personnel stationed aboard BRP Sierra Madre, and prevented the Philippine vessels from entering
Second Thomas Shoal. Several days later, as reported by the Philippines to the Tribunal, “The Philippines was able
to provide some essential food and water to its personnel aboard the Sierra Madre by means of an airdrop.” A
similar incident occurred when the Philippines attempted to resupply the BRP Sierra Madre on 29 March 2014.

China’s Dredging, Artificial Island-Building and Construction Activities – Since the commencement of the
arbitration, China has greatly intensified its programme of building artificial islands and installations at Mischief
Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, and Subi Reef. Philippines
advised the Tribunal that “China has recently extended its reclamation activities to two new features: Subi Reef
and Mischief Reef.”

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE

A. PH position

1. Jurisdiction – The Philippine asserts that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider its Submission No. 14.
Accordingly, the military activities exception in Art 298(1) (b) of the Convention does not exclude jurisdiction
because the conduct relevant to this Submission is not military in nature; rather, the activities are more
appropriately considered law enforcement activities.

2. The Philippines’ Rights to have this Dispute Settled Peacefully - the Philippines submits that it has a right to
have a dispute settled peacefully, and that China is under a corresponding obligation not to aggravate or extend a
dispute pending its resolution. The Philippines argues that China has engaged in acts that have aggravated and
extended the dispute.

a. Obligation Not to Engage in Acts that Might Aggravate a Dispute. The Philippines argues that China
and the Philippines are required under Article 279 of the Convention to “settle any dispute between them
concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by peaceful means in accordance with
Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations.”
 b. China’s Conduct in relation to the Dispute - the Philippines submits that China’s actions in and
around Second Thomas Shoal and its construction activities “violate the right of the Philippines under
Article 279 of the Convention.

B. China Position

1. Obligation Not to Engage in Acts that Might Aggravate a Dispute

the Philippines has violated the principle of good faith in relation to the DOC to comply with paragraph 5 of the
DOC and to provide “the full and effective implementation of the DOC,” in a proposal made in its Department of
Foreign Affairs statement dated 1 August 2014. This selective and self-contradictory tactic clearly violates the
principle of good faith in international law.

2. China’s Conduct in relation to the Dispute

A. Chinese Activities in and around Second Thomas Shoal China asserts:

1. It has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands

2. Philippines have attempted to construct permanent installations on Ren’ai Jiao.
3. The the Philippines illegally ran a naval ship aground in May 1999
4. That the Philippines has refused “to fulfill its commitment of towing away the vessel”

B. China’s Dredging and Construction Activities - China has consistently argued that its activities are “reasonable,
justified and lawful,” and within its sovereignty. China notes that its “indisputable sovereignty over Nansha Islands
and their adjacent waters” includes Mischief Reef and Fiery Cross Reef.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE

Future conduct of the parties

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE

The Philippines’ Submission No. 15 requested a declaration that “China shall desist from further unlawful claims
and activities.” In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal noted that the claims and activities to which the original
Submission could potentially relate were unclear. Subsequently, the PH reframed it during the hearing.

The Philippines observes that the focus of this submission is prospective. The PH contends that China’s “significant,
persistent, and continuous violations” of PH’s rights under the Convention provides ample justification for ordering
China to respect the rights and freedoms of the PH in the future, and to honor its environmental obligations. The
Philippines provides China’s failure to show due regard to the Philippines’ rights and China’s attempts to prevent
Philippine fishing or hydrocarbon activities in areas within 200 miles of the Philippines, as well as the conduct by
China of its own activities within that area.

The Philippines states that “the Tribunal would retain jurisdiction in respect of the rights and obligations of the
parties in the area of pending delimitation of overlapping entitlements, and that the provisions under Articles 74
and 83 is a manifestation of the obligation to settle disputes peacefully set forth in Article 279, and of the
prohibition on abuse of rights set forth in Article 300.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE

China has not directly stated its position with respect to Submission No. 15. The Tribunal has already noted
however, in respect of Submission No. 14, that in the course of these proceedings, Chinese officials have made a
number of statements on the importance of good faith and the duties incumbent on States pursuant to the
Convention.

As stated in Article 300 of the Convention, States Parties shall “exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedoms
recognized in this Convention in a manner which would not constitute an abuse of right.” Recently, in May 2016,
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that China acted in accordance with law and “safeguarding the sanctity of
the UNCLOS.”

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE

End of report. Thank you and God bless

Introduce Group 1