FACTS: Matter in dispute is the South China Sea at the western part of Pacific Ocean which is 3.

5 sq
kilometre. Many ASEAN countries surround the Sea.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has constitutions for the oceans. They settle
issue regarding the law of the sea but do not address sovereignty of state over the land territory.

In 2006, China declared an exclusion regarding to delimitation from acceptance of COMPULSORY

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT.

The Philippines asked the Tribuna to resolve the dispute between parties by:

1. A. Asking which source of maritime rights and entitlements should be used in South China Sea
B. Chinas rights and entitlements must be based on the Convention and NOT historic rights
C. NINE-DASH LINE are without lawful effect

2. Asked to resolve disputes entitlement of maritime zone generated under the Scarborough Shial
and Spratly Islands
-rocks which cannot sustain human habitation DO NOT generate entitlement to an exclusive e
zone (WHAT DOES IT MEAN)

3. Asked to resolve disputes

A. Interfere with Phils fishing, oil exploration, navigation, construction of artificial islands
B. Fail to protect and preserve marine environment by tolerating harmful fishing
C. Inflicting severe harm on marine environment

4. China aggravated disputes by restricting access to a detachment of Phil marines and engaging
large scale construction of artificial lands

China: Tribunal lack with jurisdiction:

a. Subject matter is territorial sovereignty
b. China and Philippines have agreed bilateral agreements
c. China is not participant of the Tribunal

PHILIPPINES SEEKS TO:

1. Rights and obligations to the waters, seabed, and maritime features of South China Sea
governed by UNICLOS and Chinas Nine-Dash Line is unconstitutional
2. Maritime features claimed by both country is a LOW TIDE AND SUBMERGED BANKS they are
capable of generating entitlement to MARITIME ZONE greater than 12M
3. Enable Phil to exercise and enjoy right within and beyond exclusive economic zone and
continental shelf

CHINAS RESPONSE:

-overlapping jurisdiction over maritime area in the South China Sea and agreed BILATERAL
NEGOTIATIONS AND FRIENDLY CONSULTATIONS

-China has the LEGITIMATE right not to accept third-party settlement

CHINAS response: Award is null and void

-it is againt their historical rights

-does not settle dispute but negates Chinas sovereignty over maritime zones

-BREACH OF CONSENSUS DAMAGES MUTUAL TRUST BETWEEN STATES

FOUR BARS OF CHINA (not based on history):

1. China made it clear that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction:

-since it is a matter of territorial sovereignty

2. State shall not initiate compulsory arbitration on disputes (ISSUE IN DECLINATION OF CHINA
TO MARITIME DELIMITATION IN 2006)

3. Parties already agreed with bilateral negotiation

4. On the procedure level: there must have an exchange of views first (but none of them happened)

TRIBUNALS TEST FOR ACCURACY:

1. Requesting written submissions from the Phil by questioning the Philippines prior to and during
two hearings
2. By reporting an expert to report on technical matters
3. By obtaining historical evidence concerning features in the South China

ISSUE:

NINE-DASH LINE

1. Whether or not China has historic rights to the resources of South China Sea in accordance with
the Constitution?
2. Whether or not China has historic rights before the Convention?

STATUS OF FEATURES

1. Whether or not the certain coral reefs claimed by China are not above water at high tide.

CHINESE ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

1. Whether or not the Chinese actions in the SCS is lawful?

2. Traditional fishing
3. Protect marine environment

AGGRAVATION OF DISPUTE

Whether or not recent large-scale reclamation and construction of artificial islands aggravated the
dispute?

FUTURE CONDUCT

RULING:

NINE-DASH LINE
 1. Chinas claim of historic rights to resources was incompatible with the detailed allocation of
rights and maritime zones in the Convention
2. South China Sea is part of the high seas where EVERYONE can navigate. Historical navigation and
fishing of China were an exercise of HIGH SEA FREEDOM rather than an exclusive control over
waters.

STATUS OF FEATURES

1. Scarborough Shoal, Johnson Reef, Cuartein Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, McKennan Reef
has high-tide features (means that they are entitled to 12 mile territorial sea)
Subi Reef, Highes Reed, Mischief Reef, and Second Thomas Shoal submerged at high tide in their
natural condition.

CHINESE ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

1. Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shial and Reed Bank are submerged at high tide form part of the
exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Phil
a. Interfered with the Phil petroleum exploration
b. Prohibit fishing
c. Protected and failed to prevent Chinese fishermen
d. Constructed installation

2. Did not respect traditional fishing rights of the Philippines.

3. Harm and exploit the environment

AGGRAVATION OF DISPUTE

1. China vioolared obligation to refrain from aggravating dispute while on a settlement process.

FUTURE CONDUCT

-both country should act in good faith and regulate their conduct as having been accepted the
Convention