The Tribunal’s Consideration

in the South China Sea Arbitration

In order to make decisions with respect to the Philippines’ Submissions No. 3, 6, and 7, the Tribunal must interpret and
apply Article 121 of the Convention.

Philippine Submissions:
 No. 3. Philippines' position that Scarborough Shoal is a rock under Article 121(3).
 No. 6. Whether Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef are low-tide elevations "that do not generate any maritime
entitlements of their own".
 No. 7. Whether Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef do or do not generate an entitlement to an
exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Article 121 of the Convention

Regime of islands

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the
continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other
land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone
or continental shelf.

A. Interpretation of Article 121 of the Convention

In approaching the interpretation of Article 121, the Tribunal separately reviewed the text of Article 121 (3). “Rocks
which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental
shelf.”

1. The text of Article 121 (3)

a. “Rocks” – Within Article 121, rocks are category of Island, which for the purposes of Article 121 (3) will
not necessarily be composed of rock.
b. “cannot” – The use of the word “cannot” in Article 121(3) indicates a concept of capacity. It is not
concerned with whether the feature actually does sustain human habitation or an economic life but whether it lends
itself to human habitation or economic life.

In other words, the fact that the feature is currently not inhabited does not prove that it is uninhabitable and the fact that
it has no economic life, does not prove that it cannot sustain economic life. Historical evidence of human habitation and
economic life in the past may be relevant for establishing a feature’s capacity.
c. “sustain” –generally means to “support, maintain, uphold”. The tribunal considers that this ordinary meaning
of “sustain” has three components, namely: 1. The concept of the support and provision of essentials; 2. Temporal
Concept: the support and provision must be over a period of time and not short-lived; 3. Qualitative Concept, entailing
at least a minimal “proper standard.”

Thus, in connection with sustaining human habitation, to sustain means to provide that which is necessary to keep
humans alive over a continuous period of time, according to a proper standard. In connection with an economic life, to sustain
means to provide that which is necessary not just to commence, but also to continue, an activity over a period of time in a way
that remains viable on an ongoing basis.

Page 1 of 10
 d. “human habitation” – defined as action of dwelling in or inhabiting as a place of residence; occupancy by
inhabitants” or “a settlement”. In the tribunal’s view, the term habitation implies:
1. a non-transient presence of persons who have chosen to stay and reside on the feature in a settled
manner; and
Thus, human habitation require all of the elements necessary to keep people alive on the feature. It also require
conditions sufficiently conducive to human life and livelihood for people to inhabit, rather than merely survive on the feature.
2. the habitation of the feature by a group or community of persons.
No precise number of persons is specified in the Article, but in the tribunal’s view, providing the basic necessities for a
sole individual would not typically fall within the ordinary understanding of a human habitation, because humans need
company and community over a sustained periods of time.

e. “or”
The tribunal must consider whether the criteria of capacity to sustain “human habitation” and an “economic life of its
own” are both required for a feature to be entitled to an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, or whether one will
suffice.

Tribunal’s interpretation: “a rock would be disentitled from an exclusive economic zone an continental shelf only if it
were to lack both the capacity to sustain human habitation and the capacity to sustain economic life of its own.” Or, in the
alternative, “an island that is able to sustain either human habitation or an economic life of its own is entitled to both an
exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf.”

f. “economic life of their own”

There are two elements of this phrase that requires consideration by the tribunal: First, the text makes use of the
particular term of “economic life”. Second, the text makes clear that the features must be capable of sustaining not “economic
life, but an economic life “of their own”
In the Tribunal’s view, for economic activity to constitute the economic life of a feature, the resources around which
the economic activity revolves, must be local, not imported, as must be the benefit of such activity.

It therefore follows that economic activity that can be carried on only through the continued injection of external
resurces is not within the meaning of “economic life of their own”

g. Conclusions drawn from the Text of Article 121 (3)

1. The use of term “rocks” does not require that a feature be composed of rock in the geologic sense in order to fall within the
scope of the provision.

2. The use of term “cannot” makes clear that the provision concerns the objective capacity of the feature to sustain human
habitation or economic life. Actual habitation or economic activity at any particular point in time is not relevant, except to the
extent that it indicates the capacity of the feature.

3. The use of the term “sustain” indicates both time and qualitative elements. Habitation and economic life must be able to
extend over a certain duration and occur to an adequate standard.

4. The use of the term “or” indicates that a feature that is able to sustain either human habitation or economic life of its own,
will be entitled to an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

2. The Context of Article 121 (3) and the Object and Purpose of the Convention
There are two aspects of the context of Article 121 (3) that require consideration:

Page 2 of 10
First, rocks and fully entitled islands exist in the context of a system of classifying features that includes fully entitled islands,
rocks, low-tide elevations, and submerged features.

Second, as Article 121 (3) concerns the circumstances in which a feature will be denied entitlements to an exclusive economic
zone and continental shelf, it must be interpreted in the context of those maritime areas and in light of the purpose behind the
introduction of the exclusive economic zone.
a. The Context of Islands, Rocks, and Low-Tide Elevations
Article 121 applies to a “naturally formed area of land”. This means that the status of a feature must be assessed on the
basis of its natural condition.

Just as a low-tide elevation cannot be legally transformed into an island through human efforts, the tribunal considers
that rocks cannot be transformed into a fully entitled island through land reclamation. Otherwise the purpose of Article 121(3)
as a provision of limitation would be frustrated.

b. The link between Article 121 (3) and the Purpose of Exclusive Economic Zone
The meaning of the text of Article 121 (3) is shaped by its context within the convention and its inherent connection
with the concept of exclusive economic zone.

As discussed by the tribunal, the purpose of the exclusive economic zone was to extend the jurisdiction of States over
waters adjacent to their coast and to preserve the resources of those waters for the benefit of the population of the coastal State.

As a counterpoint to the expanded jurisdiction of the exclusive economic zone, Article 121 (3) serves to prevent such
expansion from going too far.

3. The Travaux Preparatoires of Article 121 (3)

For the information of everybody, Travaux préparatoires is the name used to describe the documentary evidence of the
negotiation, discussions, and drafting of a final treaty text. Travaux préparatoires is the most commonly used name for these
types of documents.

The tribunal considers other circumstances that led to the adoption of Article 121 (3)

a. The History of Article 121 (3)

 The Imperial Conference of 1923

-Introduced the early definition of “island”
-The word islands covers all portions of territory permanently above water in normal circumstances and
“capable of use or habitation.”

The phrase “capable of use” here means “capable, without artificial addition, of being used”. And “capable of
habitation” means “capable, without artificial addition, of permanent human habitation”

 The 1930 League of Nations Hague Codification Conference

The United Kingdom sought to indroduce similar criteria for islands when it proposed to limit the category of
features entitled to a territorial sea to pieces of “territory surrounded by water and in normal
circumstances permanently above high water. It does not include piece of territory not capable of
occupation and use”
 The 1956 Articles Concerning the Law of the Sea

Page 3 of 10
 - The International Law Commission (ILC) adopted the similar definition which provide that “every island
has its own territorial sea” and defined an island as “an area of land surrounded by water, which in normal
circumstances is permanently above high water mark.”
 The 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone
- The above-mentioned ILC’s text was modified and included in Article 10 of the said 1958 Convention. It
recognized a territorial sea from any island, defined as “a naturally formed area of land, surrounded
by water, which is above water at high-tides.”
- Here, in describing islands as “naturally formed”, the drafters clearly excluded the possibility of States
obtaining a territorial sea through creation of artificial islands.
 rd
The 3 UN Conference in Caracas in 1974 (Second Session)
- This is where the most extensive negotiations over the provision that became Article 121 (3) took place.
- It was during this session that the Ambassador of Singapore linked the regime of islands and the need for
restriction on the features that would generate an exclusive economic zone with the development and
common heritage of mankind. But some states opposed to this because it was a practical impossibility
considering the various practical problems with distinguishing entitlements based on the size, population,
or remoteness or geographical proximity of a feature in relation to the coastal or other states.
- The regime of islands and the need for restriction on the features that would generate an exclusive
economic zone was linked with the development and common heritage of mankind.
 rd
The 3 UN Conference in Geneva in Geneva in 1975 (Third Session)
- Eventually, during the 3rd session of the 3rd UN Conference in Geneva, the matter was referred to an
informal consultative group which prepared the “Informal Single Negotiating Text” that presented the
exception for “rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own”
- “Informal Single Negotiating Text” was prepared. It presented the exception for “rocks which cannot
sustain human habitation or economic life of their own”
 The 3rd UN Conference in 1982 (Final Session)
- Proposals to delete paragraph 3 were introduced and rejected.
- In defense, it was emphasized that without paragraph 3, “tiny and barren islands, looked upon in the past
as mere obstacles to navigation, would miraculously become the golden keys to vast maritime zones.”

b. Conclusions Drawn from the Travaux Preparatoires

The tribunal considers that a number of general conclusions can be drawn from the negotiating history.
1. Article 121 (3) is a provision of limitations. It imposes two conditions that can disqualify high-tide features from
generating vast maritime spaces.
2. The definitions in Article 121(3) were not discussed in isolation but were frequently discussed in the context of other
aspects of the convention, such as: the introduction of the exclusive economic zone, the protection of the interest of archipelagic
States, the role of islands in the maritime zone, and concerns about the potential for artificial installations to generate maritime
zone.
3. The drafters accepted that there are diverse high-tide features and criterias such as population size and proximity to
other land that may be useful in deciding whether a high-tide feature should be a fully entitled island. But the negotiating history
clearly demonstrates the difficulty in setting bright-line rules for all cases. Against such attempts at precision, the drafters
clearly favoured the language in Article 121 (3).

In particular, there were repeated attempts to define islands or rocks by reference to size, but they were all rejected.
The tribunal considers that although size may correlate to the availability of water, food, living space, and resources to
economic life, size cannot be dispositive of a feature’s status as fully entitled island or rock…considering that there were large
islands which were completely uninhabited, and small ones with small populations which depend heavily upon the upon the sea.
4. Conclusions on the Interpretation of Article 121 (3)
Drawing on the foregoing consideration of the text, context, object and purpose, and drafting history of Article 121 (3),
the tribunal reached the following conclusions with respect to the interpretation of that provision.

Page 4 of 10
 The Tribunal the following conclusions:

1. The use of the word “rock” does not limit the provision to features composed of solid rock.

2. The status of a feature is determined on the basis of natural capacity, without external additions or modifications intended to
increase its capacity to sustain human habitation or an economic life of its own.

3. With respect to “human habitation”, the critical factor is the non-transient character of the inhabitation.

4. The term “economic life of their own” makes clear that the economic life in question must pertain to the feature as “of its
own”.

5. The ability to sustain either human habitation or an economic life of its own would suffice to entitle a high-tide feature to an
exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

6. Article 121 (3) is concerned with the capacity of a maritime feature to sustain human habitation or an economic life of its
own, not with whether the feature is presently, or has been, inhabited or home to economic life.

7. The capacity of a feature to sustain human habitation or an economic life of its own must be assessed on a case to case basis.

8. The capacity feature should be assessed with due regard to the potential for a group of small island features to collectively
sustain human habitation or economic life.

In tribunal’s view, provided that such islands collectively form part of a network that sustains human habitation in keeping with
the traditional lifestyle of the peoples in question, the Tribunal would not equate the role of multiple islands in this manner with
external supply.

9. The evidence of physical conditions will ordinarily suffice only to classify features that clearly fall within one category or the
other.

This means that if a feature is entirely too poor to produce much or any vegetation and lacks drinkable water and other
foodstuffs necessary for basic survival, it will be apparent that it also lacks the capacity to sustain human habitation.

10. If a feature is presently inhabited or has historically been inhabited, the tribunal should consider whether there is evidence to
indicate that habitation was only possible through outside support.
5. Relavance of State Practice in the Implementation of Article 121 (3)
The Tribunal recalled that Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention provides that “any subsequent practice in the
application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation” shall be taken into account.

This means that the parties must have acquiesced in such practice so that one can speak of an agreement reached
concerning the interpretation of the provision in question.
On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that as far as this case is concerned, there is no evidence for an agreement based
upon State practice on the interpretation of Article 121 (3) which differs from the interpretation of the Tribunal.

B. Application of Article 121 (3) to Scarborough Shoal, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven
Reef (North), and McKennan Reef.
1. Scarborough Shoal
- For the purposes of Article 121 (3), the Scarborough Shoal is a rock.

Page 5 of 10
 -The Tribunal finds that it includes 5-7 rocks that are exposed at high-tide and so
accordingly, it is a high-tide feature.
- The protrusions above high-tide at Scarborough Shoal are minuscule and obviously could not sustain
human habitation in their naturally formed state.
-This means they have no fresh water, vegetation, or living space and are remote from
anything possessing such features.

- Scarborough Shoal could independently sustain an economic life of its own.

- Although the Scaborough Shoal has been traditionally used as a fishing ground, the
economic activity in the surrounding waters have no tangible link to the high-tide feature itself, before
it could begin to constitute the economic life of the feature.
-There is no evidence that the fishermen working on the reef make use, or have any
connection to, the high-tide rocks at Scarborough Shoal, nor is there any evidence of economic
activity beyond fishing. Hence, there is no evidence that Scarborough Shoal could independently
sustain an economic life of its own.
2. Johnson Reef
- Also a rock, for purposes of Article 121 (3)
-The tribunal finds that in its natural condition, it had at least one rock, and is accordingly a
high-tide feature.
-But like the rocks at Scarborough Shoal…
- It is a minuscule, barren feature obviously incapable, in its natural condition, incapable of sustaining
human habitation or an economic life of its own.
-While China has constructed an installation and maintains an official presence on Johnson Reef, this
is only possible through construction of the reef platform. This cannot elevate its status from rock to
fully entitled island.
-China’s presence is necessarily dependent on outside supplies.
3. Cuarteron Reef
- A rock and is accordingly a high-tide feature
- Minuscule and barren and obviously incapable, in its natural condition, of sustaining human
habitation or an economic life of its own.
- China has constructed an installation and engaged in reclamation work at Cuarteron Reef through
dredging.
- China’s presence is dependent on outside supplies, and there is no evidence of any human activity in
the feature prior to China’s presence in 1988.
- China’s construction on Cuarteron Reef, no matter how extensive, cannot elevate its status from rock
to fully entitled island.
4. Fiery Cross Reef
- A rock and is accordingly a high-tide feature.
- Minuscule and barren and obviously incapable, in its natural condition, of sustaining human
habitation or an economic life of its own.
- China has constructed an installation and engaged in reclamation work at Fiery Cross Reef through
dredging.
- China’s presence is dependent on outside supplies, and there is no evidence of any human activity in
the feature prior to China’s presence in 1988.
- China’s construction on Fiery Cross Reef, no matter how extensive, cannot elevate its status from
rock to fully entitled island.
5. Gaven Reef (North)
- A rock and is accordingly a high-tide feature

Page 6 of 10
 - China has constructed an installation and engaged in reclamation work at Gaven Reef (North)
through dredging.
- China’s presence is dependent on outside supplies, and there is no evidence of any human activity in
the feature prior to China’s presence in 1988.
- China’s construction on Gaven Reef (North), no matter how extensive, cannot elevate its status from
rock to fully entitled island.
6. McKennan Reef
- A rock and is accordingly a high-tide feature
- incapable, in its natural condition, of sustaining human habitation or an economic life of its own.
-No evidence of human activity nor has any State installed a human presence there.

C. Application of Article 121 to the Spratly Islands as a Whole

The Tribunal takes note of China’s statement that “China has, based on the Nansha Islands, as a whole,
territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.” This statement can be understood in two ways:
1. China considers that the criteria of human habitation and economic life must be assessed while bearing in mind that a
population may sustain itself through the use of a network of close related maritime features. The tribunal agreed to this.
- The Tribunal agrees to this because as already discussed, small island populations will often use a group of reefs to
support their livelihood, where this is the case, the tribunal will not equate it as external supply.
2. China’s statement could also be understood as an assertion that the Spratly Islands should be enclosed within a
system of archipelagic or straight baselines, surrounding the high-tide features of the group, and accorded an entitlement to
maritime zones as a single unit.
- But with this, the Tribunal did not agree because the use of archipelagic baselines is strictly controlled by the
Convention where Article 47(1) limits their use to “archipelagic states.”
-Archipelagic State, as defined under Article 46, are “States constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may
include other islands.” Philippines is an archipelagic state being constituted wholly by an archipelago, and hence,
entitled to employ archipelagic baselines. China, however, is constituted principally by territory on the mainland of
Asia and hence, does not meet the definition of archipelagic state.
- The Tribunal did not agree to this because the use of archipelagic baselines is strictly controlled by the Convention
where Article 47(1) limits their use to “archipelagic states”
-Archipelagic States- States constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands (Article 46).
-Philippines is an archipelagic state, China is not.

D. Application of Article 121 to Other High-Tide Features in the Spratly Islands

1. Factual Findings concerning High-Tide Features in the Spratly Islands
-The tribunal has reviewed a substantial volume of evidence concerning the conditions on the significant high-tide
features in the Spratly Islands this includes the constructed installations on the features and installation of personnel. But to
represent more reliable guide to the capacity of the feature to sustain human habitation or economic life, the tribunal
considered the historical the historical evidence of conditions of the features prior to the human modification.
a. The Presence of Potable Fresh Water
-Historically, there is a presence of small freshwater lenses under most of the high-tide
features in the Spratlys because there are consistent reports of small wells loated particularly on Itu Aba, Thitu, and North-East
Cay. The quality of this water may not match the standards of modern drinking. But the tribunal notes that the freshwater
resources of these features evidently have supported small number of people in the past.
b. Vegetation and Biology
Records likewise indicate that the larger features in the Spratly Islands have historically been vegetated. This
vegetation appears to have increased with Japanese commercial interests having made effort to introduce fruit trees, particularly
on Itu Aba.
By 1933, Itu Aba is described as having a “dense forest of papaya.” There were also palm fields, pineapple fields and
sugar cane fields.

Page 7 of 10
 The tribunal considers the recordd to indicate that Itu Aba and Thitu have been most heavily forested features in their
natural condition. Moreover, Itu Aba appears to have been amenable to the introduction and cultivation of papaya and banana
trees, even if they are not naturally occurring.

c. Soil and Agricultural Potential

The tribunal considers that the most instructive elements to be the clear indication that fruits and vegetables were being
grown on Itu Aba during the period of Japanese commercial activity. The tribunal sees no evidence that these would have
involved the importation of soil and concludes that it most likely reflects the capacity of the feature in its natural condition.
At the same time, the tribunal also accepts the point that the capacity for such cultivation would be limited and would
not suffice on its own to support sizable population.
d. Presence of Fisherman
Based on the records, the tribunal concludes that the Spratly lslands were historically used by small groups of
fishermen and that some of these individuals were present in the Spratly for a long period of time, with an established network
of trade and intermittent supply.
e. Commercial Operations
There are evidence of Japanese commercial and industrial activities on Itu Aba and South-West Cay.
HMS Iroquois’ 1926 report confirms the presence of guano mining. Although the report described the facility as
inactive, a British account from the following year noted the presence of Japanese ship lying close to the pier. The Japanese said
that from 3000 to 5000 tons of guano were exported annually. A similar mining operation was established on Itu Aba in 1921.
However in 1933, these mining operations has apparently ceased.

2. The Application of Article 121 and the Tribunal’s Conclusions on the Status of Features
-On the basis of the eviodence on records, it appears that the principal high-tide features in the
Spratly Islands are capable of enabling the survival of small groups of people.
1. there is historical evidence of potable water; 2. There is also naturally occurring vegetation,
capable of providing shelter and the possibility of at least limited agriculture to supplement the food resources
of the surrounding waters; 3. Small numbers of fisherman have historically been present and appear to have
survived principally on the basis of the resources at hand; 4. Some features in the Spratly Islands were the site
of Japanese mining and fishing activities in 1920s and 1930s. But the question is whether any of this activity
constitutes “human habitation” or an “economic life of its own” for the purposes of Article 121 (3)
1. Whether any of this activity constitutes “human habitation” or an “economic life of its own” for the
purposes of Article 121 (3).
2. Whether there is evidence to suggest that the historical record of human activity on the Spratly
Islands is not a proof of the natural capacity of the features.

a. Historical Human Habitation of the Features of the Spratly Islands

The tribunal considers human habitation to entail the non-transient inhabitation of a feature by a stable community of
people for whom the feature constitutes a home and on which they can remain.
The tribunal concluded that the criterion of human habitation is not met by the temporary inhabitation of the Spratly
Islands by the fishermen, even for extended periods. They very fact that fishermen are consistently recorded as being “from
Hainan” or elsewhere is evidence that they do not represent the natural population of the Spratlys. The record indicates a pattern
of temporary residence on the features, with the fishermen ultimately returning to the mainland. The same holds true with
respect to the Japanese commercial activities on Itu Aba and South-West Cay because the labourers brought to the Spratlys to
mine guano is inherently transient in nature.
Finally, the presence of the military or other governmental personnel on the Spratly Islands by one or another of the
littoral states does not suffice to constitute “human habitation” for the purposes of Article 121 (3) because these groups are
heavily dependent on outside supplies.

Page 8 of 10
 Accordingly, the tribunal concludes that Itu Aba, Thitu, West York, Spratly Island, South-West Cay, and North-West
Cay are not capable of sustaining human habitation within the meaning of Article 121 (3).

b. Historical Economic Life of Their Own of the Features of the Spratly Islands
The tribunal considers that to constitute economic life of the feature, economic activity must be oriented around the
feature itself and not be focused solely on the surrounding territorial sea or entirely dependent on external resources. Applying
this standard, the history of extractive economic activity does not constitute evidence of “economic life of their own”

Thus, the tribunal concludes that Itu Aba, Thitu, West York, Spratly Island, South-West Cay, and North-West Cay are
not capable of sustaining economic life of their own within the meaning of Article 121 (3)

E. Decision on the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction with respect to Submission No. 5

Having addressed the status of features in the Spratly Islands, the Tribunal now return to the question of its
jurisdiction with respect to the Philippines’ Submission No. 5, which request the tribunal to declare that “Mischief Reef and
Second Thomas Shoal are part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines.

1. Maritime Boundary Delimitation and the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

The tribunal held that Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are low-tide elevations and as such, generate no
entitlement to maritime zones of their own. The tribunal also held that neither Itu Aba, nor any other high-tide feature in the
Spratly Islands, is a fully entitles island for the purposes of Article 121 of the Convention, as such, these features are legally
considered to be “rocks” and generate no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf .
From these conclusions, it follows that there exists no legal basis for any entitlement by China to maritime zones in the
area of Mischief Reefs or Second Thomas Shoal. Accordingly, there is no situation of overlapping entitlements that would call
for delimitation of ovelap. Consequently, because no delimitation is required, there is no possible basis for the application of the
exception to jurisdiction in Article 298(1)(a)(i).

2. Third Parties and the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

In its Award on Jurisdiction, the tribunal concluded (and reaffirms in this decision) that “the absence of other States as
parties to the arbitration poses no obstacle”. However, in light of Malaysia’s Communication to the Tribunal on June 23, 2016
that overstates the “Monetary Gold Principle,” which calls for a court or tribunal to refrain from exercising its jurisdiction where
the legal interests of a third State would not only be affected by a decision, but would form the very subject matter of the
decision” the tribunal considers that, to the extent it has examined certain features claimed by China (that are also claimed by
Malaysia)for the purposes of assessing the possible entitlements of China in areas to which Malaysia has no claim, the legal
interests of Malaysia do not form “the very subject-matter of the dispute” are not implicated by the Tribunal’s conclusions.

In these circumstances, Malaysia’s rights and interests are protected.

F. Conclusion

Based on the considerations outlined above, the Tribunals finds, with respect to the Philippines Submissions No. 3, 6,
and 7 that Scarborough Shoal, Gaven Reef, Mackennan Reef, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef, contain
naturally formed areas of land, surrounded by water, which are above water at high-tide, within the meaning of Article 121 (1)
of the Convention.

However, for the purposes of Article 121(3) of the Convention, these features are rocks that cannot sustain human
habitation or economic life of their own and accordingly, shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

With respect to Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal, the Tribunal concluded that both are low-tide elevations that
generate no maritime zones of their own. Accordingly, there is no possible entitlement by China to any maritime zone in the

Page 9 of 10
area of either Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal, and no jurisdictional obstacle to the Tribunal’s consideration of the
Philippines’ Submission No. 5.

With respect to the Philippines’ Submission No. 5, the Tribunal concluded that both Mischief Reef and Second Thomas
Shoal are located within 200 nautical miles of the Philippine’s coast on the island of Palawan. It follows therefor that as
between the Philippines and China, Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal form part of the exclusive economic zone and
continental shelf of the Philippines.

Page 10 of 10