Tribunal Favors Philippines Over South China Sea Dispute

The Scarborough Shoal (Panatag Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc) and certain maritime features in the Spratly Islands (Kalayaan Islands) are being claimed by China, stating that those features are under China’s “nine-dash line”. China’s claim covers nearly the entire South China Sea including parts of the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). China had insisted that it has “historic rights” in asserting its ownership of the region believed to be rich in natural gas resources and also a vital trade route for international cargo ships.

The Philippines filed a case in 22 January 2013 against China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague. The Philippines placed before the Tribunal disputes that fall broadly in four categories (from PCA Case No 2013-19 Award document):

1. The Philippines has asked the Tribunal to resolve a dispute between the Parties concerning the source of maritime rights and entitlements in the South China Sea. Specifically, the Philippines seeks a declaration from the Tribunal that China’s rights and entitlements in the South China Sea must be based on the Convention and not on any claim to historic rights. In this respect, the Philippines seeks a declaration that China’s claim to rights within the ‘nine-dash line’ marked on Chinese maps are without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the entitlements that China would be permitted by the Convention.

2. The Philippines has asked the Tribunal to resolve a dispute between the Parties concerning the entitlements to maritime zones that would be generated under the Convention by Scarborough Shoal and certain maritime features in the Spratly Islands that are claimed by both the Philippines and China. The Convention provides that submerged banks and low-tide elevations are incapable on their own of generating any entitlements to maritime areas and that “[r]ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own” do not generate an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles or to a continental shelf. The Philippines seeks a declaration that all of the features claimed by China in the Spratly Islands, as well as Scarborough Shoal, fall within one or the other of these categories and that none of these features generates an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or to a continental shelf.

3. Third, the Philippines has asked the Tribunal to resolve a series of disputes between the Parties concerning the lawfulness of China’s actions in the South China Sea. The Philippines seeks declarations that China has violated the Convention by:

   • interfering with the exercise of the Philippines’ rights under the Convention, including with respect to fishing, oil exploration, navigation, and the construction of artificial islands and installations;
   • failing to protect and preserve the marine environment by tolerating and actively supporting Chinese fishermen in the harvesting of endangered species and the use of harmful fishing methods that damage the fragile coral reef ecosystem in the South China Sea; and
   • inflicting severe harm on the marine environment by constructing artificial islands and engaging in extensive land reclamation at seven reefs in the Spratly Islands.

4. The Philippines has asked the Tribunal to find that China has aggravated and extended the disputes between the Parties during the course of this arbitration by restricting access to a detachment of Philippine marines stationed at Second Thomas Shoal and by engaging in the large-scale construction of artificial islands and land reclamation at seven reefs in the Spratly Islands.

On Tuesday, July 12, the PCA in the Hague finally decided that China’s claims in the West Philippines Sea (South China Sea) is illegal and rightfully belongs to the Philippines and not to China. The 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.’”

It also said that China had violated the sovereign rights of the Philippines by (quoting from the same document):

• interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration,
• constructing artificial islands and
• failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone.

While the decision of the Tribunal is legally binding, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has no powers of enforcement.

China insists that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the issue because it concerns territory and security issues. China, which refused to participate in the tribunal’s proceedings, reiterated on Tuesday that it would not abide by it. President Xi Jinping said after the arbitration ruling was announced that China is committed to resolving disputes through direct negotiations, but its national sovereignty and maritime interests will not be influenced under any circumstances by the South China Sea ruling.

In The Diplomat magazine, Monday, Harvard University professor Graham Allison wrote, “In fact, none of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international court’s ruling when (in their view) it infringed on their sovereignty or national security interests. Thus, when China rejects the Court’s decision in this case, it will be doing just what the other great powers have repeatedly done for decades.” ●