Introduction

The case was initiated by the Philippines in 2003 which sought a ruling
on the legality of China’s historic claims to its so-called “NINE-DASH LINE”
that encompasses 80% of the South China Sea. The Philippines also sought a
finding that China had acted detrimentally to the Philippines interests
through island building and consequent environmental damage within the
Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The eventual decision of the Court was heavily in favor of the
Philippine’s position, and included the critical findings that there was no
legal basis for the nine-dash line and that none of the Spratly Islands’
features listed in the claim met the legal threshold to generate an EEZ.
The significance of the South China Sea
The South China Sea is one of the most strategically important stretches of water in the
world, encompassing 3.5 million square kilometers from Singapore to the Straits of Taiwan.

What is at stake in the West

Philippine Sea dispute are:
80% of the Philippines’ exclusive economic
zone (EEZ), comprising 381,000 square
kilometers of maritime space.
100% of the Philippines’ extended continental
shelf (ECS), estimated at over 150,000 square
kilometers of maritime space.
Maritime area of over 531,000 square
kilometers, larger than the total land area of
the Philippines of 300,000 square kilometers.
Legend:
------------- CHINA’S
CLAIMED NATIONAL
BOUNDARIES
UNCLOS 200
NAUTICAL MILES EXCLUSSIVE
ECONOMIC ZONE

DISPUITED ISLANDS
 China’s Nine-Dashed Lines

China’s nine-dashed lines claim encloses

85.7% of the entire South China Sea. This is
equivalent to 3 million square kilometers out of
the 3.5 million square kilometers surface area of
the South China Sea.
China did not formally submitted any claim or
documentation to the UN regarding the nine-
dashed line until May 2009 in response to
Malaysia and Vietnam submitting claims for an
extended continental shelf.
Carl A. Thayer, ‘South China Sea Disputes: ASEAN and
China', East Asia Forum, July 14, 2011
Nine-dashed Lines Map Submitted by China to
United Nations on 7 May 2009
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
…the key international legal agreement that governs the worlds’ oceans.

It entered into force on November 16, 1994

World’s most expansive international convention with 167 states
The US remains one of the few nations not to have ratified the
convention, although it abide by its provisions
Its negotiation balanced the desire of coastal states seeking
greater control over the waters adjacent to their coasts and those
seeking to protect the longstanding principles of freedom of
navigation
UNCLOS only deals with maritime disputes and not jurisdiction
over land
Maritime Zones under UNCLOS
An island above water at high tide is
entitled to a 12 NM territorial sea. If
such island is capable of human
habitation or economic life of its own,
it is entitled to a 200 NM EEZ. If
there is a natural prolongation of its
extended continental shelf, it is
entitled to an ECS up to where the
natural prolongation ends, but not
exceeding 150 NM from the outer
limits of its EEZ. The maximum
maritime zone a coastal state can
claim is 150 NM from the outer limits
of its 200 NM EEZ
The Philippines’ Case
The Philippines sought a legal determination on the validity of
China’s nine-dash line, arguing the concept is inconsistent with
UNCLOS, and asked the Court to judge whether a number claimed
by both China and the Philippines were legally island, rocks or low
tide elevations. Furthermore, the Philippines also sought a
declaration that China had interfered with the Philippines right under
UNCLOS.
The Philippines’ Case
A key aspect of the Philippines case relates to offshore territory.

The three classes of offshore features defined within UNCLOS are:

oISLANDS
oROCKS
oLOW TIDE ELEVATIONS

All the three are relevant to this dispute.

ISLAND

Article 121 of the UNCLOS defines island as a naturally

formed area of land surrounded by water, which is above
water at high tide. It futher states that an island capable of
human habitation or economic life of its own is entitled to a
12 NM territorial sea and a 200 NM EEZ, and if there is a
natural prolongation of its extended continental shelf, it is
entitled to an ECS up to the end of such natural prolongation
but not exceeding 150 NM from the outer limits of its EEZ
ROCKS

Rocks above water at high tide which cannot sustain

human habitation or economic life of their own shall have
no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf and only
generate 12 nautical mile territorial sea.
 LOW TIDE ELAVATIONS
A Low-Tide Elevation (LTE) is a naturally formed area of land (rock, reef,
atoll or sandbar) surrounded by water, above water at low tide but
submerged at high tide.

An LTE is part of the submerged continental shelf. An LTE is not land or

territory, and has no territorial sea or territorial airspace (Art. 13,
UNCLOS).

LTE do not generate any maritime zones by themselves but if they are
within a coastal state’s territorial waters, they may be used as the
baseline from which the breadth of territorial sea is measured.
 EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

• A sea zone prescribed by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea over which a state has special rights regarding the exploration and use of
marine resources, including energy production from water and wind.
• It stretches from the baseline out to 200 nautical miles (nm) from its coast.
• In colloquial usage, the term may include the continental shelf. The term does
not include either the territorial sea or the continental shelf beyond the 200 nm
limit.
• The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is
that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is
merely a "sovereign right" which refers to the coastal state's rights below the
surface of the sea.
 CHINA’S POSITION
China ratified UNCLOS on June 7, 1996

China specifically stated that the ‘Peoples Republic of China shall enjoy
sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200
nautical miles and the continental shelf’.

China argued that the nine-dash line has always had a foundation in the
international law based on discovery, occupation, and historic titles.

China has repeatedly stated that it does not accept the legality of the
proceedings and refused to either participate in deliberations or accept Court
findings.
 CHINA’S POSITION

China placed great emphasis on the concept that sovereignty over land territory
is the basis for determining maritime rights and consequently argued that no
maritime-based determination can be made until sovereignty issues are first
resolved.

China consequently argued that by initiating arbitration through the Permanent

Court of Arbitration, the Philippines has breached international law.
 CHINA’S HISTORICAL RIGHTS

ARGUMENT:
First, that China is not entitled to exercise what it refers to as 'historic rights' over the
waters, seabed, and subsoil beyond the limits of its entitlements under the Convention.”

EXPLANATION:
China says the South China Sea has belonged to it for centuries. This is why it claims
"historical rights" over the disputed sea.

• Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court, however, says
that "even if true," these historical rights have no bearing on sea disputes under
UNCLOS. Carpio explains that UNCLOS "extinguished all historical rights of other states."
This UN convention instead gives each coastal state an EEZ.
 BREACH OF THE LAW OF THE SEA

ARGUMENT:
China has breached the Convention by interfering with the Philippines’ exercise of
its sovereign rights and jurisdiction.

EXPLANATION:
China prevents Filipinos from fishing in the West Philippine Sea. UNCLOS, on the
other hand, gives Filipinos the exclusive rights to fish within the Philippines' EEZ in
the disputed waters.
 DAMAGE TO ENVIRONMENT

ARGUMENT:
China has irreversibly damaged the regional marine environment, in breach of
UNCLOS, by its destruction of coral reefs in the South China Sea, including areas
within the Philippines’ EEZ, by its destructive and hazardous fishing practices, and
by its harvesting of endangered species.

EXPLANATION:
China is building artificial islands in the West Philippine Sea. The Philippines says
China's reclamation activities have buried 311 hectares of coral reefs – around 7
times the size of Vatican City. This can mean P4.8 billion ($106.29 million) in lost
economic benefits. At the same time, China is accused of poaching.
 CHINA CLAIMS

• China has boycotted the international tribunal that was set up to hear the case.

“If you don’t know what countries these specks of land belong to, you can’t use
the treaty to draw territorial and economic zones in the waters around them. And
the judges can’t decide whom the specks of land belong to because the Law of
the Sea deals only with maritime disputes, not land disputes.”
 CHINA CLAIMS

• They have exercised AUTHORITY AND CONTROL HISTORICALLY over the entire
South China Sea prior to and during the period of its colonization and occupation
by Japan.

• These “historic rights” are illustrated by a map depicting what has since come to
be known as the dotted/nine-dash line.

• 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.
 CHINA CLAIMS

• Regarding the rights and obligations in regard to the waters, seabed, and maritime
features of the South China Sea, on the basis of historic rights and as depicted in
the map containing the nine-dash line, are INVALID BECAUSE THEY ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONVENTION.

• China could lay its claims are governed not by the terms of the UNCLOS but by the
long, continuous and effective control it claims to have exercised over these
marine areas.
 The Philippines filed its complaint under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

• Lays out rules for the use of the world’s oceans.

• A country has sovereignty over waters extending 12 nautical miles from its coast,
and control over economic activities in waters on its continental shelf and up to
200 nautical miles from its coast, including fishing, mining, oil exploration and
the construction of artificial islands

• Sets out detailed rules for defining these zones, what to do when two nations’
zones overlap and how to resolve disputes.
Submission Number Philippines’ Claim Jurisdictional Ruling Merits Ruling

(Deferred to merits stage) Yes: UNCLOS comprehensively

China’s maritime entitlements in allocates rights to maritime
areas
1 South China Sea may not exceed
those established by UNCLOS Jurisdiction granted

Philippines win

Yes: There is no legal basis for

China to claim historic rights to
waters in the South China Sea
(Deferred to merits stage)
China’s “nine-dash line” claim is (so, to the extent that is what
invalid to the extent it exceeds the nine-dash line means, it is
2 the limits established by UNCLOS Jurisdiction granted invalid)

Philippines win

Yes: Scarborough Shoal is a rock

Scarborough Shoal generates no that generates no EEZ

3 EEZ or continental shelf Jurisdiction granted

Philippines win
Submission Number Philippines’ Claim Jurisdictional Ruling Merits Ruling
Yes: Mischief Reef, Second
Mischief Reef, Second Thomas
Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are
Shoal, and Subi Reef are all LTEs
LTEs
that do not generate territorial
4 seas or EEZs, and are not subject Jurisdiction granted
to appropriation
Philippines win

Yes: Mischief Reef and Second

Mischief Reef and Second
Thomas Shoal are part of the
5 Philippines’ EEZ and continental
shelf
Thomas Shoal are part of the EEZ
(Deferred to merits stage)
and continental shelf of the
Philippines
Jurisdiction granted
Philippines win

No: Both Gaven and McKennan

Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef Reef are above water at high
(including Hughes Reef) are LTEs tide; they are rocks that
that generate no maritime generate territorial seas but no
6 entitlements, but may be used Jurisdiction granted EEZ or continental shelf
to determine baselines to
measure territorial sea
Philippines loss
Submission Number Philippines’ Claim
Johnson Reef, Cuarterton Reef,
and Fiery Cross Reef generate no
7 entitlements to EEZ or Jurisdiction granted
continental shelf
China has interfered with the
Philippines’ exercise of sovereign
rights over living and non-living
8 resources within its EEZ and
continental shelf
China has failed to prevent its (Reserved to merits stage)
nationals and vessels from
9 exploiting the living resources in
the Philippines’ EEZ
Jurisdictional Ruling Merits Ruling
Yes: Johnson Reef, Cuarterton
Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are
rocks that generate no EEZ or
continental shelf
Philippines win
Yes: China has interfered with
Philippine sovereign rights to
(Deferred to merits stage)
fishing and hydrocarbon
exploration within its EEZ
Jurisdiction granted
Philippines win
Yes: China failed to prevent
Chinese fishermen from fishing
within the Philippine EEZ
Jurisdiction granted
Philippines win
Submission Number Philippines’ Claim
China has prevented Philippine
fishermen from pursuing their
10 livelihoods through traditional fishing Jurisdiction granted
activities around Scarborough Shoal
China has violated UNCLOS’s
environmental protection obligations
11 at Scarborough Shoal and Second
Thomas Shoal
China’s occupation and construction
on Mischief Reef violate UNCLOS
provisions on artificial islands and
12 environmental protection, and are
unlawful acts of attempted
appropriation
Jurisdictional Ruling
Jurisdiction granted
(Deferred to merits stage)
Jurisdiction granted
Merits Ruling
Yes: China violated the Philippines’
“traditional fishing rights” at
Scarborough Shoal
Philippines win
Yes: China engaged in
environmentally harmful
fishing/harvesting practices at
Scarborough Shoal and Second
Thomas Shoal
Philippines win
Yes: Environmental protection
provisions were violated at Mischief
Reef; artificial island construction
violated Philippine sovereign rights
within its EEZ; the “appropriation”
claim is moot because Mischief Reef
is an LTE not capable of appropriation
Philippines win
Submission Number Philippines’ Claim
China has violated UNCLOS by
dangerously operating law
enforcement vessels creating serious
13 risk of collision near Scarborough
Shoal
Jurisdictional Ruling Merits Ruling
Yes: China violated UNCLOS and other
treaty provisions on maritime safety
Jurisdiction granted
Philippines win

Yes: Although there is no jurisdiction

China has unlawfully aggravated and
extended the dispute by interfering
with the Philippines’ rights of
navigation near Scarborough Shoal, (Deferred to merits stage)
preventing the rotation and resupply
14 of Philippine personnel stationed at
Second Thomas Shoal, and
endangering the health of the
personnel there
over disputes involving military
activities such as the Second Thomas
Shoal standoff, China has
aggravated/extended the disputes
through recent large-scale land
reclamation and artificial island
Jurisdiction granted in part, denied in construction in the Philippine EEZ
part
Philippines win

Going forward China shall respect the (Deferred to merits stage) Qualified yes: This claim simply asks
rights and freedoms of the Philippines China to do what it is required to do
15 under UNCLOS and comply with its under UNCLOS; therefore, no further
duties under UNCLOS Jurisdiction granted statement is necessary