Background

The South China Sea, rich in natural resources and strategically important for international shipping, has been a subject of territorial disputes among several nations. The Philippines, concerned about China's increasing assertiveness in the region, initiated arbitration proceedings in 2013 to clarify the maritime entitlements of both nations under UNCLOS. Despite China's non-participation and rejection of the tribunal's jurisdiction, the arbitration proceeded. The case attracted global attention due to its potential impact on regional stability and the interpretation of international maritime law.

Facts

• 1. The dispute concerns maritime entitlements and rights in the South China Sea, particularly within the area encompassed by China's "nine-dash line."
• 2. The Philippines sought rulings on four main issues: a) The source of the parties' rights and obligations in the South China Sea and the effect of UNCLOS on China's claims to historic rights. b) The status of certain maritime features under UNCLOS. c) The lawfulness of certain Chinese actions in the South China Sea. d) The aggravation or extension of the dispute by China's recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands.
• 3. China refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings but expressed its position through diplomatic communications and a Position Paper.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. China's maritime entitlements in the South China Sea should not extend beyond those permitted by UNCLOS.
• 2. China's "nine-dash line" claim is contrary to UNCLOS and without lawful effect.
• 3. Certain maritime features claimed by China are not islands capable of generating an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf.
• 4. China has unlawfully interfered with the Philippines' sovereign rights and freedoms in its EEZ and continental shelf.
• 5. China has failed to protect and preserve the marine environment in the South China Sea.
• 6. China's actions since the commencement of the arbitration have unlawfully aggravated and extended the dispute.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Although China did not formally participate in the proceedings, its position was inferred from public statements and diplomatic correspondence.
• 2. The tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the case as the essence of the subject matter is territorial sovereignty.
• 3. China and the Philippines have agreed to settle their disputes through bilateral negotiations.
• 4. The subject matter of the arbitration is an integral part of maritime delimitation, which is excluded from compulsory arbitration under China's 2006 declaration.
• 5. China has historic rights within the "nine-dash line" that predate and are not extinguished by UNCLOS.
• 6. China's land reclamation and construction activities on features in the South China Sea are lawful and do not infringe on the Philippines' rights.

Issues

• 1. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction over the Philippines' claims?
• 2. What is the legal status of China's "nine-dash line" and claimed historic rights in the South China Sea?
• 3. What is the status of various features in the South China Sea under UNCLOS?
• 4. Has China violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its EEZ and continental shelf?
• 5. Has China breached its obligations under UNCLOS regarding the protection of the marine environment?
• 6. Have China's actions since the commencement of the arbitration unlawfully aggravated the dispute?

Ruling

• 1. Jurisdiction: The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction over most of the Philippines' claims, rejecting China's arguments that the dispute was about territorial sovereignty or maritime delimitation.
• 2. Nine-dash line and historic rights: The Tribunal concluded that UNCLOS comprehensively allocates rights to maritime areas and that China's claims to historic rights within the nine-dash line are incompatible with UNCLOS to the extent they exceed the limits of China's maritime zones under the Convention.
• 3. Status of features: The Tribunal ruled that none of the Spratly Islands are capable of generating extended maritime zones and that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit.
• 4. Violation of Philippines' sovereign rights: The Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its EEZ by interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, constructing artificial islands, and failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the area.
• 5. Protection of marine environment: The Tribunal concluded that China's large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands have caused severe harm to the coral reef environment, violating its obligations under UNCLOS.
• 6. Aggravation of the dispute: The Tribunal held that China's actions since the commencement of the arbitration, particularly its large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands, had aggravated the dispute between the parties.

Doctrines

• 1. Compulsory dispute settlement under UNCLOS: The Tribunal affirmed the binding nature of the dispute settlement mechanism under UNCLOS, even when one party refuses to participate.
• 2. Extinction of historic rights: The Tribunal held that any historic rights China may have had to resources in the South China Sea were extinguished when incompatible with UNCLOS.
• 3. Interpretation of Article 121 (Regime of Islands): The Tribunal provided a detailed interpretation of the requirements for an island to generate an EEZ and continental shelf, emphasizing the feature's capacity to sustain human habitation or economic life in its natural condition.
• 4. Due diligence obligation: The Tribunal affirmed states' obligation to exercise due diligence in preventing their nationals from engaging in activities harmful to the marine environment.
• 5. Duty not to aggravate a dispute: The Tribunal recognized a duty on parties engaged in a dispute settlement procedure to refrain from actions that might aggravate or extend the dispute during the pendency of the settlement process.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "The Tribunal concludes that, as between the Philippines and China, China's claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the 'nine-dash line' are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China's maritime entitlements under the Convention."
• 2. "The Tribunal considers that the Convention defines the scope of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, which may not be extended unilaterally by any of the States Parties."
• 3. "The Tribunal concludes that the Convention superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein."

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia): Used to support the distinction between disputes concerning sovereignty and those concerning maritime entitlements.
• 2. Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine): Referenced to support the Tribunal's approach to interpreting Article 121 of UNCLOS regarding the regime of islands.
• 3. Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland): Cited to support the Tribunal's understanding of the relationship between UNCLOS and prior fishing rights.