Philippines wins arbitration case vs.

China over South China Sea

It has finally been decided that the Philippines has exclusive sovereign rights over the West
Philippine Sea (in the South China Sea) and that China’s “nine-dash line” is invalid,
according to the United Nations (UN) Arbitral Tribunal.

READ: Key points of the arbitral tribunal’s verdict on Philippines vs China case
The Tribunal issued its Award Tuesday after several months of hearings and submission of
documents. China was absent throughout the proceedings, refusing to recognize the case.

“The international Arbitral Tribunal on Tuesday issued its award on the arbitration case
between Philippines and China over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) dispute.
In a 501-page award, the Tribunal decided in favor of the Philippines and said that China
does not have historic rights to the South China Sea and that their “nine-dash line” claim has
no legal basis.
Below are five key points included in the summary statement released to the media.
(1) Historic Rights and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’:
The Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters
of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible
with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention.
The Tribunal also noted that, although 2 Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those
of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no
evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their
resources.
The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to
resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.
(2) Status of Features:
The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and
construction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and
relied on historical materials in evaluating the features.
The Tribunal found historical evidence to be more relevant and noted that the Spratly Islands
were historically used by small groups of fishermen and that several Japanese fishing and
guano mining enterprises were attempted.
The Tribunal concluded that such transient use does not constitute inhabitation by a stable
community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive. Accordingly,
the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended
maritime zones.
The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as
a unit. Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating
an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a
boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the
Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.
 (3) Lawfulness of Chinese Actions:
Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the
Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive
economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b)
constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the
zone.
The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like those from China) had
traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with these
rights in restricting access.
The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a
serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels.
(4) Harm to Marine Environment:
The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of China’s recent large-scale
land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands
and found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its
obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened,
or endangered species.
The Tribunal also found that Chinese authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have
harvested endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South
China Sea (using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment) and had
not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities
(5) Aggravation of Dispute:
Finally, the Tribunal considered whether China’s actions since the commencement of the
arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties.
The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off
between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second
Thomas Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was therefore
excluded from compulsory settlement.

The Philippine delegation argues its case against China’s “nine-dash line” claim in the South
China Sea before the International tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Photo: Permanent
Court of Arbitration

It has finally been decided that the Philippines has exclusive sovereign rights over the West
Philippine Sea (in the South China Sea) and that China’s “nine-dash line” is invalid,
according to the United Nations (UN) Arbitral Tribunal.

READ: Key points of the arbitral tribunal’s verdict on Philippines vs China case
The Tribunal issued its Award Tuesday after several months of hearings and submission of
documents. China was absent throughout the proceedings, refusing to recognize the case.

“The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to
resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line,” the statement released to
the media said.
“Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an
exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—
declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines,
because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China,” it added.

BACKSTORY: The heart of the dispute over the West PH Sea

“Can a country claim “historic rights” over an area far away from its boundary and already
within the maritime zone of another country?
This was the central point of Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario’s speech before the
United Nations (UN) arbitral tribunal hearing the case of the maritime dispute between China
and the Philippines.
“China has claimed ‘historic rights’ in areas that are beyond 200 nautical miles from its
mainland coasts, or any land feature over which it claims sovereignty, and within 200 NM of
the coasts of the Philippines’ main islands,” Del Rosario said.
“The central element of the legal dispute between the parties, is that China has asserted a
claim of ‘historic rights’ to vast areas of the sea and seabed that lie far beyond the limits of
its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf entitlements under the convention.”
This was contrary to the provisions of the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Seas
(Unclos), where China and the Philippines are signatories.
Under Unclos, a state has a 200-NM EEZ from the coast of islands it owns
“The convention does not recognize, or permit the exercise of, so called ‘historic rights’ in
areas beyond the limits of the maritime zones that are recognized or established by Unclos,”
Del Rosario said.
“[China] has acted forcefully to assert [its claim], by exploiting the living and nonliving
resources in the areas beyond the Unclos limits while forcibly preventing other coastal states,
including the Philippines, from exploiting the resources in the same areas—even though the
areas lie well within 200 NM of the Philippines’ coast,” he said.
China has previously claimed that it has “indisputable sovereignty” over the entire South
China Sea through the establishment of its nine-dash line claim.
According to official maps published by the Chinese government, the nine-dash line runs
close to the coasts of Palawan island and several provinces in Luzon overlapping with the
Philippines’ EEZ. It also overlaps with the maritime zones of Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, and
Indonesia.
“The so-called nine-dash line has no basis whatsoever under international law insofar as it
purports to define the limits of China’s claim to ‘historic rights,'” Del Rosario pointed out as
one of the main claims in the Philippines’ case.
He also said that China’s massive land reclamation activities turning reefs and submerged
rocks in the Spratly islands were a “blatant disregard of the Philippines rights’ in its EEZ.”
Several Asian countries, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Japan, were allowed
as observers by the tribunal despite the proceedings being closed to the public.

The Tribunal also said that China has violated Philippine sovereign rights.

“Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines,
the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive
economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b)
constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the
zone,” the tribunal statement said.

“The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to
resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line,”

“The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a
serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels,” it said.

READ: China’s ‘nine-dash line, historic rights’ invalid–tribunal

The international arbitral tribunal has concluded that China’s “nine-dash line” in the South
China Sea is “invalid” and that it does not have “historic rights” over the disputed region.
“The tribunal concluded that … there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to
resources … within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line,’” the tribunal said in their
decision on the arbitration case between the Philippines and China released on Tuesday.
“The tribunal concluded that historical navigation and fishing by China in the waters of the
South China Sea represented the exercise of high seas freedoms, rather than a historic right,
and that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over
the waters of the South China Sea or prevented other states from exploiting their resources,”
it said.
The Philippines had filed an arbitration case against China in January 2013 following the
tense standoff at Scarborough Shoal where Chinese maritime law enforcement vessels
blocked Philippine authorities.
Filipino fishermen have been unable to fish in the resource rich Scarborough Shoal ever since.
The tribunal had also concluded that Chinese activities such as building of artificial islands
within the Philippines’ 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) were illegal.
READ: Key points of arbitral tribunal’s verdict on PH-China dispute
“The tribunal found as a matter of fact that China had (a) interfered with Philippine petroleum
exploration at Reed Bank, (b) purported to prohibit fishing by Philippine vessels within the
Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, (c) protected and failed to prevent Chinese fishermen
from fishing within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone at Mischief Reef and Second
Thomas Shoal, and (d) constructed installations and artificial islands at Mischief Reef without
the authorization of the Philippines,” the tribunal said.
“The tribunal therefore concluded that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights
with respect to its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf,” it said.

The Spratly Islands and its many reefs are being claimed by China under its “nine-dash line”
claim that covers nearly the entire South China Sea including parts of the Philippines’
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

READ: China: We are the victims in dispute; won’t heed UN decision

China said that it was the victim in the maritime dispute over the West Philippine Sea and
that it would never accept any decision by the United Nations (UN) arbitral tribunal.
“The origin and crux of the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China
Sea lie in the territorial sovereignty disputes caused by the Philippines’ illegal occupation of
some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Islands since the 1970s,” Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokeperson Hua Chunying said in an official statement posted online.

Being a victim of the South China Sea issue, China, bearing in mind the whole situation of
regional peace and stability, has been exercising utmost restraint,” she said.
Over the course of several months while the arbitration case was ongoing, China has done
massive reclamation projects on several reefs in the Spratly Islands creating artificial islands
capable of hosting military structures, equipment, and personnel.
The arbitral tribunal recently concluded hearings on the case particularly on the issue of
jurisdiction and admissibility.
The Philippines, led by Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario, presented its claims
while China continued to refuse to participate insisting it had “indisputable sovereignty” and
“historic rights” to the South China Sea.
READ: Maritime affairs expert separates facts from fiction on Scarborough Shoal
“China opposes any move by the Philippines to initiate and push forward the arbitral
proceeding,” Hua said.
“On issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, China will never
accept any imposed solution or unilaterally resorting to a third-party settlement,” she said.

“China opposes any move by the Philippines to initiate and push forward the arbitral
proceeding,” Hua said.
“On issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, China will never
accept any imposed solution or unilaterally resorting to a third-party settlement,” she said.
China claims the entire South China Sea through its nine-dash line concept which overlaps
with the Philippines 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone mandated by the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Through the arbitration case filed by at the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea
(ITLOS), the Philippines hopes to clarify whether China’s claim is valid or not.
Since the Philippines backed down from the Scarborough shoal standoff back in 2012, China
has been effectively exercising control over waters around the Spratly Islands off the coast of
Palawan and Scarborough off the coast of Subic.
Filipino fishermen have told of stories of being forcibly turned away by Chinese Marine
Surveillance vessels through water cannons.
Tensions over the dispute between China and the Philippines have been high since the
Scarborough shoal incident where Chinese fishermen were found illegally poaching endemic
and endangered Philippine marine species.
READ: The heart of the dispute over the West PH Sea
A standoff ensued when Philippine authorities were blocked by Chinese ships from
apprehending the fishermen.
“China has always adhered to and has been committed to resolving, in accordance with
international law and on the basis of respecting historical facts, relevant disputes relating to
territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests with relevant states directly
concerned through negotiation and consultation,” Hua said.
“This is China’s consistent practice, and also common practice of the international
community. China urges the Philippines to return to the right approach of resolving relevant
disputes through negotiation and consultation as soon as possible,” she said.

Since the initiation of the arbitration case, China has conducted several massive reclamation
projects to turn submerged reefs into artificial islands capable of hosting military structures
and equipment.

China’s reclamation activities have alarmed other Southeast Asian nations, particularly
Vietnam, that also have competing claims in the South China