Ruling of the permanent court of arbitration

On 2012, the Philippines and China had a tense standoff towards Scarborough Shoal. It
was where 2 countries are claiming the said island. To settle it, on the following year,
the Republic of the Philippines set an arbitration case towards the West Philippine Sea
against the Republic of China. The list below are the rulings of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration related to Scarborough Shoal.

First, the status of features of the South China Sea

Under Article 13 and 121 of the Convention, features that are above water during high
tide has an entitlement to at least 12 nautical mile territorial sea. Otherwise, it has no
entitlement to maritime zones. In other words, the “nine-dash line basis of China has no
weigh to their arguments. Experts were appointed by the Tribunal court to measure the
evidence of the Philippines regarding to its claims on the Scarborough Shoal. The
results shows that the Philippines were saying the truth regarding to its claims to
Scarborough Shoal and many other near islands being claimed by China; Johnson
Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef as it passed the high tide features and
entitlement for Philippines’ maritime zones. However, the Tribunal did not limit the rights
of Scarborough Shoal to the Republic of the Philippines since it was already a traditional
fishing area to other countries and they also have fishing rights to it aside from the
Philippines.

Second, there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources
within the sea areas falling within the “nine-dash line”
The nine-dash line basis of China is not valid because it disrespect the sovereignty of
other countries as the nine-dash line of China overlaps with them. Due to this reason,
the ruling extinguished and invalidated the nine-dash line of China as it is incompatible
and disrespects the rights of the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines. In addition,
the China violated the rights of the Philippines’ sovereignty due to the reasons of;
1. Interfering with the fishermen of the Philippines and petroleum exploration
2. By constructing artificial islands in the Philippines’ sovereignty
3. And lastly, for not preventing the fishermen of China from fishing in the
Philippines’ EEZ.
The tribunal emphasized that even though China had already gained and used the
Islands in the South China Sea, still there is no evidence that they have the rights to
manipulate its waters and resources.
 Third, China had breached its obligations under the convention on the
International Regulations for preventing collisions at sea
The PCA hold its technical legal findings to criticize China’s aggressive posture in
the South China Sea. The Tribunal determined that China’s actions, such as
constructing artificial islands and restricting Philippine access to the area, were unlawful
and unduly infringed on the Philippines’ rights within its EEZ. The PCA went further to
note that China’s construction and land reclamation activities were causing severe and
irreparable harm to the fragile ecosystem of the South China Sea.
In other words, the PCA’s technical analysis on the legal status of Chinese-
claimed features in the South China Sea seriously damaged China’s sovereignty claims,
despite the Tribunal’s careful attempts to state otherwise.

Fourth, China violated its obligations to refrain from aggravating or extending the
parties disputes during the pendency of the settlement process
During the pendency of the Tribunal decision, China still start their process on building
and constructing artificial islands in the Philippines’ EEZ. What China did intensified the
dispute regarding the claims of the Scarborough Shoal during the pendency of the
settlement process. On the other hand, the Tribunal cite the other violations of China;
1. Produced a large artificial island on Mischief Reef that is still part of the EEZ of
the Philippines.
2. Caused irreparable damage and harm to the coral reef ecosystem
3. Permanently destroyed the evidence of the natural condition of the features in
the question.
All of these are the reasons why the Tribunal concluded that China had made enough
damages to the EEZ of the Philippines and violated its obligations during the pendency
of settlement.