The arbitration case launched by the Philippines against China currently stands as

the most significant, and most closely watched, development for specialist and
observers of the maritime disputes in the South China Sea. (amti.csis.org)
The case of the Philippines against China is a direct result of very recent events
arising out of the long-festering dispute between the two countries. (amti.csis.org)
On January 23, 2013, the Philippine announced that it initiated an arbitration case
against China by issuing a Notification and Statement of Claim in accordance with
the dispute settlement provisions of UNLCOS, particularly under Art. 287 and Annex
VII. Both the Philippines and China are signatories to UNLCOS, having ratified it in
1984 and 2006 respectively. (amti.csis.org)
UNCLOS provide for numerous means of peaceful settlement of maritime disputes,
which include non-binding means between the disputing parties and binding means
involving third parties such as arbitration and adjudication,. While all States may
resort to any of the non-binding means at any time, Article 287(3) requires them to
select their preferred binding means involving third parties. If they do not do so,
they are deemed to have selected arbitration under UNLCOS Annex VII as the mode
of dispute settlement. Any selection, however, is subject to certain express
limitations under Article 297(2) and Article 297(3) and/or optional exceptions under
Article 298(1). (amti.csis.org)
Since neither the Philippines nor China expressed any preference third-party dispute
settlement mechanism in their ratifications, both are deemed to have selected
arbitration as the means to settle maritime disputes. (amti.csis.org)

On 22 January 2013, the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the

Philippines presented a note verbale to the Embassy of the Peoples Republic
of China in the Philippines, stating that the Philippines submitted a
Notification and Statement of Claim in order to initiate compulsory arbitration
proceedings under Article 287 and Annex VII of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea(Convention) with respect to the dispute
with China over maritime jurisdiction in the South China Sea. (position
paper of china)
On 19 February 2013, the Chinese Government rejected and returned to the
Philippines note verbale together with the attached Notification and
Statement of Claim. The Chinese Government has subsequently reiterated
that it will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration thus initiated by
the Philippines. (position paper of china)

The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty

over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of
the Convention and does not concern the interpretation or application of the
Convention.(position paper of china)

China and the Philippines have agreed, through bilateral instrument and the
Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, to settle their relevant
disputed through negotiations. By unilaterally initiating the present arbitration, the
Philippines has breached its obligation under international law. . (position paper of
china)
The essence of subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the
interpretation or application of the Convention, that subject-matter would constitute
an integral part of maritime delimitation between the two countries, thus falling
within the scope of the declaration filed by China in 2006 in accordance with the
Convention, which excludes, inter alia, disputes concerning maritime delimitation
from compulsory arbitration and other compulsory dispute settlement procedures.
(position paper of china)
The Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the present arbitration, Based on the
foregoing positions and by virtue of the freedom of every State to choose the means
of dispute settlement. (position paper of china)
The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty
over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which does not concern the
interpretation or application of the Convention.
With regard to the first category of claims presented by the Philippines for
arbitration, it is obvious that the core of those claims is that Chinas maritime claims
in the South China Sea have exceeded the extent allowed under the Conbvention.
As far as the present arbitration is concerned, without first having determined
Chinas territorial sovereignty over the maritime features in the South China Sea,
the Arbitral Tribunal will not be in position to determine the extent to which China
may claim maritime rights in the South China Sea pursuant to the Convention, not
to mention whether Chinas claims exceed the extent allowed under the
Convention. But the issue of territorial sovereignty falls beyong the purview of the
Convention.
Consequntly, Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the claims of the Philippines
for arbitration. (position paper of china)

China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands (the
Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha
Islands) and the adjacent waters. Chinese activities in the South China Sea
date back to over 2,000 years ago. China was the first country to discover,
name, explore and exploit the resources of the South China Sea Islands and
the first to continuously exercise sovereign powers over them.

The Philippines activities have violated the Charter of the United Nations and
international law, and seriously encroached upon Chinas territorial
sovereignty and maritime rights and interest. They are null and void in law.

Philippines claim according to China:

First, Chinas assertion of the historic rights to the waters, sea-bed and
subsoil within the nine-dash line beyond the limits of its entitlements under
the Convention is inconsistent with the Convention.
Second, Chinas claim to entitlements of 200 nautical miles and more, based
on certain rocks, low-tide elevations and submerged features in the South
China Sea, is inconsistent with the Convention.
Third, Chinas assertion and exercise of rights in the South China Sea have
unlawfully interfered with sovereign rights, jurisdiction and rights and
freedom of navigation that the Philippines enjoy and exercises under the
Convention.

There exist an agreement between China and the Philippines to settle their disputes
in the South China Sea through negotiations, and the Philippines is debarred from
unilaterally initiating compulsory arbitration.
With regard to disputes concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, China
has always maintained that they should be peacefully resolved through negotiations
between the countries directly concerned. In the present case, there has been a
long-standing agreement between China