The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China, PCA Case No. 2013-19 (South China Sea Arbitration, Award of July 12, 2016)

• Court Name and Bench:

Court: Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), The Hague

Bench: Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• Date of Judgment

Judgment delivered: July 12, 2016

• Parties Involved

Petitioner: The Republic of the Philippines, a sovereign state contesting maritime claims and activities by China in the South China Sea within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf.

Respondent: The People’s Republic of China, claiming historic rights over much of the South China Sea through the “nine-dash line” claim and engaging in maritime activities contested by the Philippines.

• Facts of the Case:

This case was mainly a dispute over competing maritime claims in the South China Sea; an important strategic waterway, and natural resource-rich area. The Philippines became concerned when China’s sweeping claim of almost 90% of the South China Sea, outlined in their “nine-dash line,” established its unilateral claim to historical waters in the area. The Philippines commenced arbitration against China on January 22, 2013, under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to address uncertainties about its maritime entitlements, and to protect its own sovereign rights in the maritime features arising in the area of the conflict. China asserted that it had “historical rights” based on the nine-dash line, and claimed sovereignty or exclusive rights over the islands, reefs and waters within the nine-dash line – all of which overlapped with the Philippines’ claimed EEZ and continental shelf. China rejected jurisdiction for the arbitration and did not actively participate in the arbitration proceedings. China contested the jurisdiction because it claimed the dispute involved sovereignty issues which was not included and that the tribunal’s claim to jurisdiction alleged it had authority over the arbitration. The Philippines asserted that China has violated its rights, as prescribed by the UNCLOS, by: 

(1) abiding by fishing bans imposed by state agencies; 

(2) harassing, seizing vessels or otherwise disrupting Filipino fishermen’s access to their traditional fishing grounds;

(3) claiming or building artificial islands; 

(4) obstructing oil exploration by Filipino bodies; and 

(5) damaging marine environments and fauna.

The arbitration tribunal had a twofold mandate: determine the status of certain maritime features (islands, rocks, low-tide elevations); make legal findings about the legality of China’s nine-dash line; and make findings of fact (the lawfulness of China’s various acts at sea).

Issues Raised:

• Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction in light of China’s objections and the two issues referred to it. 
• The validity of China’s claims of history validity under the ‘nine dash line’. 
• The status of geographical features claimed by China and whether China is entitled to maritime zones. 
• Whether China’s actions such as fisheries prohibitions, construction activities, and interference with Philippine rights are lawful. 
• Whether China violated international law by causing environmental damage.

Arguments of the Parties:

• Philippines (Petitioner):

The petitioner asserted that China’s historic rights indicated by the “nine-dash line” have no legal foundation as a matter of international law under UNCLOS and should be ignored. Petitioner also asserted that UNCLOS allows for a system of rights to coastal States, to exercise sovereign rights extending no more than 200 nautical miles from the baselines, and that features must satisfy the requirements of UNCLOS to produce maritime zones. Claims that China breached its sovereign rights as recognized by UNCLOS by:

1. Interfering with the Philippines’ fishing activities and oil exploration in the Philippines’ EEZ.
2. Building artificial islands and engaging in marine environmental destruction without the consent of the Philippines.
3. Denying the freedom of navigation and marine scientific research.

Requested that the Tribunal determine the Philippines’ maritime entitlements, declare that China’s claims and activities were unlawful including the environmental destruction.

• China (Respondent):

The Respondent argued that the tribunal had no jurisdiction, particularly regarding sovereignty and maritime delimitation issues, claiming that, according to China, these are bilateral political issues that are not capable of arbitration under UNCLOS. It claimed historic rights to the South China Sea area within its “nine-dash line”, including rights to regulate fishing and other activities. Respondent also denies that it had violated any international law or violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights. It also refused to participate actively in the arbitration, retaining that such arbitration was unlawful and invalid.

• Judgment:

The tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction mainly because the dispute referred to the interpretation and application of the provisions of UNCLOS, rather than a dispute over its sovereignty over land territory, which was excluded. The tribunal ruled that China’s historic rights claim of the ‘nine-dash line’, was inconsistent with UNCLOS, because UNCLOS maritime zones take precedence over historic rights claims. It found that a number of maritime features claimed by China were low-tide elevations or rocks that do not qualify for a coastal state’s exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, thus limiting maritime entitlements. The tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights by:

1. Interference with fishing and petroleum exploration that takes place in the Philippines’ EEZ.
2. Failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from exploiting resources without authorization and illegally.
3. Constructing artificial islands and causing serious environmental damage to the marine environment.
4. Using vessels that enforce laws to intimidate Filipinos from fishing or using vessels in its EEZ.

The tribunal rejected the jurisdictional objections raised by China and condemned China’s actions as violations of UNCLOS. The award called for China’s respect for the Philippines’ sovereign rights and on the provision of protection of the marine environment.

• Legal Reasoning:

Jurisdiction arose from the dispute settlement procedures provided for under UNCLOS, particularly in terms of identifying land territory sovereignty disputes as excluded, but not maritime entitlement disputes. The tribunal made clear that the only legal framework relating to claims to maritime rights could be only thru UNCLOS, rejecting claims made without legal criteria and historic claims such as the ‘nine-dash line’. The tribunal applied strict legal definitions based upon international law by way of UNCLOS to identify the features and the entitlement; UNCLOS Articles, 121, 55, 57, 60, and 76 such as islands that sustained human habitation or economic life produced EEZ, or rocks and low-tide elevations did not.

The tribunal reaffirmed the sovereign rights of a coastal States over its EEZ in compliance with the requirements under UNCLOS relative to the exploration and exploitations of natural resources, and the obligation to protect the marine environment dealt with in UNCLOS legal obligations found in Articles 192-194. The tribunal determined China acted in breach of the Philippines sovereign rights to its EEZ and continental shelf when China interfered with fishing by the Philippines and exploration. Attribution of obligations to UNCLOS added the requirement on states to prevent harm to the marine environment; the tribunal determined that China acted in breach when it reclaimed land and when it attacked the fishing by the Philippines in the EEZ. Ruling reinforced that not only do treaties govern expectations; but there is also an arrangement to offer legally binding arbitration and holding states accountable when disputes concern treaties like UNCLOS.

• Conclusion:

The ruling is a landmark decision reconfirming UNCLOS as the governing authority for addressing maritime disputes. It limits coastal state claims to excess maritime claims based on historic rights inconsistent with UNCLOS and further locates shipping and maritime activity in the rule of law.

Notwithstanding the ruling, China’s rebuttal of the arbitration shows the intrinsic enforcement challenges of international law. The case will nonetheless be an important precedent for maritime sovereignty and rights and environmental protection and in international maritime disputes.