The dispute between Philippines and China begun when the Republic of the Philippines sought a 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. China did not want to participate in the arbitration
proceedings and once the Tribunal satisfied the requirements of jurisdiction over the subject case, the
arbitration continued with only the Republic of the Philippines appearing as a party therein.

The Tribunal gave the Philippines a clear and convincing legal victory over China and the following are a
summary of each party’s argument and the Tribunal’s decision:

1. China claims that it has historic rights over maritime areas within the South China Sea pursuant to the
“nine-dash line”. The Tribunal concluded that indeed, in the past, China had historic rights over the
waters of the South China Sea, however, these rights were extinguished as they were incompatible with
the Exclusive Economic Zone provided in the UNCLOS. It also noted that, Chinese fishermen and
navigators historically made used of the waters and the islands in the South China Sea, there is no
indication, however, that they exercised exclusive control over the same.

2. Along with the decision, the Tribunal also clarified and emphasized the status of the features found in
the disputed area. It declared that none of them were “islands”, within the meaning of UNCLOS, and
that they are not capable of generating their own Exclusive Economic Zone and that the majority of
them were not even rocks that would at least entitle it to an independent territorial sea. The UNCLOS
provides that islands generate an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and a continental shelf,
but “rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive
economic zone or continental shelf.” The Tribunal noted that although the Spratlys Islands were
historically used by groups of fishermen that such transient use does not constitute inhabitation by a
stable community. A such, it declared that certain maritime areas are within the Exclusive Economic
Zone of the Philippines because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.

3. Lastly, the Tribunal concluded that the Republic of China had violated the sovereign rights of the
Philippines in its exclusive economic zone when: a) it interfered with Philippine fishing and exploration;
b) it constructed artificial islands and caused significant damage to the maritime area: c) it maneuvered
its vessels as to cause danger to Philippine ships; and d) it failed to prevent Chinese fishermen from
fishing within the Exclusive Economic Zone.