Dear All,
I just start reading the Philippines v. China case by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague on July 12, 2016. At this stage, I think the PCA's additional definition of Article121 Regime of islands is a direct interference on sovereignty and as such would be outside its jurisdiction. However, court proceedings is still a peaceful means, fairness needs to be appreciated and exercised by all parties.
International laws intends to govern fairly the conducts of the States, its key principles are to consider traditional notions of sovereignty, consent, and positivism.
The Preamble of the UNCLOS states " with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans......." Article 15 also spells out the importance of historic title or other special circumstances and asks for mutual agreement of the two countries. Similar consideration are shown on Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone in Article74, Delimitation of the continental shelf in Article83.
I would like to make notes of the followings, to share.
1. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court "in the traditional sense", but rather a bureaucracy that provide services of arbitral tribunal to resolve disputes between member states, international organizations, or private parties arising out of international agreements.[2][3] The cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade. The PCA is not a United Nations agency, but a separate organization comprising 119 member states.[4][5][6]
Permanent Court of Arbitration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration
The United Nations says it has no position regarding either legal merits or procedural merits of the case. [153][154] The UN's International Court of Justice says it has no involvement in the case either.[155]
2. CHINA REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE ARBITRAL AUTHORITY
China issues a Note Verbale stating that “it does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines” and therefore will not participate in the proceedings; August 1, 2013.
Deeming the case as a political farce played in the name of law by Manila, China has repeatedly reiterated its stance of non-acceptance and non-participation, and still advocates for a settlement to the dispute through negotiations. China claimed that by mid-June, the number of countries that expressed support for China’s stance had risen to 60, and is still growing.
China considers that by filing the arbitration case, the Philippines has shut the door to negotiations for dispute settlement, and has breached the solemn pledges it once made. In the past 20 years, the Philippines reached and signed at least six statements and agreements with China on peaceful settlement of the South China Sea disputes through negotiations.
http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/why-china-refuses-to-accept-arbitration-filed-by-the-philippines/
3. US RELEASES "LIMITS IN THE SEAS" REPORT in December 2014
The United States Department of State issues a Limits in the Seas report on China’s Nine-Dash Line claim.
In the report, the State Department examines three different possible rationales for China’s Nine-Dash Line claim and examines the legality of each under UNCLOS and customary international law. In its examination of the legality of a historic waters claim, the report notes that numerous claimants in the South China Sea participate in activities that demonstrate that there is not an “effective” or “continuous exercise” of Chinese sovereignty in the region.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1376464/us-limits-in-the-seas-dos-no143-china-in-scs-12.pdf
4. In December 2014, The PRC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issues a position paper on the arbitration case. In the document, China reiterates comments made in the Note Verbale in February 2013 by outlining its arguments for why the case does not fall within the scope of UNCLOS’s compulsory dispute mechanism. The paper argues that the arbitration ultimately deals with sovereignty over disputed islands, a claim which the Philippines claims is contradicted by their initial Notification and Statement of Claim. China states that its own sovereignty over the maritime features in question has never been determined by an international body, so the Arbitral Tribunal, which is unable to rule on issues of sovereignty, cannot determine the extent of China’s maritime rights. China refuses to comment on whether or not some of the disputed features are indeed low-tide elevations, even though these features figure prominently in the Philippines’ case. China also argues that by signing the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration of Conduct for Parties in the South China Sea, the Philippines agreed that bilateral negotiations were the only acceptable means of resolving such disputes.
5. PCA's Further definition on Island and rock.
UNCLOS PART VIII. REGIME OF ISLAND, Article121. Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
PCA's Interpretation of Article 121(3)
Paragraph 487, p208,
487. The Tribunal considers that the ordinary meaning of “sustain” has three components. The first is the concept of the support and provision of essentials. The second is a temporal concept: the support and provision must be over a period of time and not one-off or short-lived. The third is a qualitative concept, entailing at least a minimal “proper standard”. Thus, in connection with sustaining human habitation, to “sustain” means to provide that which is necessary to keep humans alive and healthy over a continuous period of time, according to a proper standard. In connection with an economic life, to “sustain” means to provide that which is necessary not just to commence, but also to continue, an activity over a period of time in a way that remains viable on an ongoing basis. 489. In the Tribunal’s view, the use in Article 121(3) of the term “habitation” includes a qualitative element that is reflected particularly in the notions of settlement and residence that are inherent in that term. The mere presence of a small number of persons on a feature does not constitute permanent or habitual residence there and does not equate to habitation. Rather, the term habitation implies a non-transient presence of persons who have chosen to stay and reside on the feature in a settled manner. Human habitation would thus require all of the elements necessary to keep people alive on the feature, but would also require conditions sufficiently conducive to human life and livelihood for people to inhabit, rather than merely survive on, the feature.
6. Disputes heard. The case submitted by the Philippines to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) concerns eight maritime features that are currently under the control of China.
The first four are low tide elevations that are completely submerged: Mischief Reef, which is 130 nm from Palawan, Kennan Reef (180 nm), Gaven Reef (205 nm) and Subi Reef (230nm). The other four are rocks or reefs that are, at most, entitled to only 12 nm. These are Scarborough shoal, 120 nm from Luzon, Johnson reef 180 (nm from Palawan), Cuarteron reef (240nm from Palawan) and Fiery Cross reef (255 nm from Palawan).
Taiping Island, the largest of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, has an area of 46 hectares and the Republic of China in Taiwan stations a Cost Guard garrison there. It has a dock being enlarged to berth a 3,000-ton Cost Guard cutter, an airport that accommodates C-130 cargo planes, a weather station, a park and a temple.
Scholars comments on the Role of the arbitral tribunal
* Legal scholar Anthony Carty of University of Hong Kong states in a published book that the case has been criticized and the arbitration tribinal now faces a claim which is not justiciable.[75]
* Chinese Society of International Law, explains in a published report that the Award for the case is completely erroneous. It's against the principle of international law.[5]
* Abdul G. Koroma, former judge of the International Court of Justice, states that a tribunal is not allowed to pass judgement on a territorial and boundary dispute since a tribunal doesn't have competence nor power to judge such matter.[76]
* Wu Shicun, president and senior research fellow of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, says that China’s claims are based on historic evidence. Philippines' occupation of South China Sea islands is illegal. The arbitration is against international law, and the only way for a peaceful resolution is to respect the commitment to negotiations.[77]
* Stefan Talmon, director of the Institute of Public International Law at the University of Bonn, states that the Permanent Court of Arbitration does not have jurisdiction over territorial issues which are governed by customary international law, not UNCLOS.[78]
* Antonios Tzanakopoulos, associate professor of public international law at the University of Oxford, states in his published paper that the dispute of the case is obviously about sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Sovereignty and maritime delimitation are beyond the stipulation of the UNCLOS.[79][80]
* Tom Zwart, Professor of Law, Utrecht University, and director of the Cross-Cultural Human Rights Centre, states that the case breaks down the culture of harmony in Asia. To bring people together, tea should be offered, not a sword. In Asia, the award will be considered as the fruit of a poisonous tree. The case has so many actors and can affect many interests, justice can never be rendered, the dispute should not be handled by a judicial tribunal. The United States should be prevented from getting involved because it is not a direct stakeholder of this issue.[81][82]
* Australian international lawyers Rothwell[who?] and Stephens[who?] wrote in a published book that “[t]he Part XV dispute settlement mechanisms ... do not have jurisdiction over disputes arising under general international law”[5]
China's nine-dashed line
* Kuen-Chen Fu, dean of South China Sea Institute, Xiamen University, chief editor of China Oceans Law Review, states that in contract, a gesture like the nine-dashed line does not constitute an offer. China demarcated the u-shaped line with the help of the United States legal office in 1947. Countries including the Philippines and the United States were acknowledged the existence of the nine-dashed line. The US requested permission to visit the Spratly Islands in 1960.[21]
* Ted L. McDorman, professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Victoria, states in a published book that historic waters are not regulated under UNCLOS. The ICJ in the 1982 Tunisia/Libya case clearly stated that historic rights of waters are governed by customary international law, not UNCLOS.[84]
* John Norton Moore, director of the Center for National Security Law and the Center for Oceans Law and Policy, said that the China's nine-dash line claim is illegal and has no basis in the UNCLOS.[85] He also asserted that the nine-dashed line is not in China's interest, saying: "“If others were to do the same thing around the world, that China has done in the nine-dash line, it would be extremely harmful to the interests of China around the world.”[86]
* Wu Shicun, president and senior research fellow of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, stated that the China's nine-dash line came almost half a century ahead of the UNCLOS, there is no reason to ask the nine-dash line to conform to a later convention. The non-retroactivity is a basic principle of international law, the existing facts of the past cannot be overwritten [clarification needed] by today's law.[87]
Claims by the Philippines
* Heydarian wrote that the country is "engaged in a crucial effort to ensure all claimant states align their claims in accordance to prevailing international legal regimes," but also noted that "the Aquino administration may have placed too much emphasis on its inherently uncertain lawfare at the expense of much-needed bilateral dialogue with its powerful neighbor, which seems determined to snub and defy the ongoing hearing at The Hague at all costs."[88]
* Zou Keyuan, Harris Professor of International Law at the Lancashire Law School of the University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom, states in his published book that possible EEZ of the Spratly Archipelago is ignored in the Philippines' unilateral EEZ claim. Sovereignty over land territory always controls maritime jurisdiction. The Philippine argument of EEZ in the case may be an effort to muddy the juridical water and to try gain some international support for its weak sovereignty claim.[89]
* Kuan-Hsiung Wang, a professor at the Graduate Institute of Political Science, National Taiwan Normal University, has characterized the claims by the Philippines as "Dubious", opining that the Philippines is undermining efforts to resolve disputes and promote stability.[90]
* ce?]
Philippines v. China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China
Manila made 15 submissions to PCA tribunal, in particular whether Scarborough Shoal and low-tide areas like Mischief Reef can be considered islands. PCA tribunal set aside seven pointed claims mainly accusing Beijing of acting unlawfully. On 29 October 2015, the PCA tribunal ruled that it had the power to hear the case.
On 19 February 2013, China officially refused to participate in the arbitration because, according to China, its 2006 declaration under article 298[6] covers the disputes brought by the Philippines and that this case concerns sovereignty, thus it deems the arbitral tribunal formed for the case has no jurisdiction over the issue.[7]
On 12 July 2016, the tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines against China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea;[11][12] in its major ruling, the tribunal ruled that China has "no historical rights" based on the "nine-dash line" map.[11][12] China has rejected the ruling, as have Taiwan.[13][14]
The United Nations holds no position on the case, and the International Court of Justice has had no involvement.
Philippines v. China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki Philippines_v._China
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
PART XI OF THE CONVENTION
UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Article15
Delimitation of the territorial sea between States
with opposite or adjacent coasts
Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.
PART XV. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Article 298. Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2. 1.
When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf
I just start reading the Philippines v. China case by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague on July 12, 2016. At this stage, I think the PCA's additional definition of Article121 Regime of islands is a direct interference on sovereignty and as such would be outside its jurisdiction. However, court proceedings is still a peaceful means, fairness needs to be appreciated and exercised by all parties.
International laws intends to govern fairly the conducts of the States, its key principles are to consider traditional notions of sovereignty, consent, and positivism.
The Preamble of the UNCLOS states " with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans......." Article 15 also spells out the importance of historic title or other special circumstances and asks for mutual agreement of the two countries. Similar consideration are shown on Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone in Article74, Delimitation of the continental shelf in Article83.
I would like to make notes of the followings, to share.
1. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court "in the traditional sense", but rather a bureaucracy that provide services of arbitral tribunal to resolve disputes between member states, international organizations, or private parties arising out of international agreements.[2][3] The cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade. The PCA is not a United Nations agency, but a separate organization comprising 119 member states.[4][5][6]
Permanent Court of Arbitration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration
The United Nations says it has no position regarding either legal merits or procedural merits of the case. [153][154] The UN's International Court of Justice says it has no involvement in the case either.[155]
2. CHINA REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE ARBITRAL AUTHORITY
China issues a Note Verbale stating that “it does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines” and therefore will not participate in the proceedings; August 1, 2013.
Deeming the case as a political farce played in the name of law by Manila, China has repeatedly reiterated its stance of non-acceptance and non-participation, and still advocates for a settlement to the dispute through negotiations. China claimed that by mid-June, the number of countries that expressed support for China’s stance had risen to 60, and is still growing.
China considers that by filing the arbitration case, the Philippines has shut the door to negotiations for dispute settlement, and has breached the solemn pledges it once made. In the past 20 years, the Philippines reached and signed at least six statements and agreements with China on peaceful settlement of the South China Sea disputes through negotiations.
http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/why-china-refuses-to-accept-arbitration-filed-by-the-philippines/
3. US RELEASES "LIMITS IN THE SEAS" REPORT in December 2014
The United States Department of State issues a Limits in the Seas report on China’s Nine-Dash Line claim.
In the report, the State Department examines three different possible rationales for China’s Nine-Dash Line claim and examines the legality of each under UNCLOS and customary international law. In its examination of the legality of a historic waters claim, the report notes that numerous claimants in the South China Sea participate in activities that demonstrate that there is not an “effective” or “continuous exercise” of Chinese sovereignty in the region.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1376464/us-limits-in-the-seas-dos-no143-china-in-scs-12.pdf
4. In December 2014, The PRC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issues a position paper on the arbitration case. In the document, China reiterates comments made in the Note Verbale in February 2013 by outlining its arguments for why the case does not fall within the scope of UNCLOS’s compulsory dispute mechanism. The paper argues that the arbitration ultimately deals with sovereignty over disputed islands, a claim which the Philippines claims is contradicted by their initial Notification and Statement of Claim. China states that its own sovereignty over the maritime features in question has never been determined by an international body, so the Arbitral Tribunal, which is unable to rule on issues of sovereignty, cannot determine the extent of China’s maritime rights. China refuses to comment on whether or not some of the disputed features are indeed low-tide elevations, even though these features figure prominently in the Philippines’ case. China also argues that by signing the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration of Conduct for Parties in the South China Sea, the Philippines agreed that bilateral negotiations were the only acceptable means of resolving such disputes.
5. PCA's Further definition on Island and rock.
UNCLOS PART VIII. REGIME OF ISLAND, Article121. Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
PCA's Interpretation of Article 121(3)
Paragraph 487, p208,
487. The Tribunal considers that the ordinary meaning of “sustain” has three components. The first is the concept of the support and provision of essentials. The second is a temporal concept: the support and provision must be over a period of time and not one-off or short-lived. The third is a qualitative concept, entailing at least a minimal “proper standard”. Thus, in connection with sustaining human habitation, to “sustain” means to provide that which is necessary to keep humans alive and healthy over a continuous period of time, according to a proper standard. In connection with an economic life, to “sustain” means to provide that which is necessary not just to commence, but also to continue, an activity over a period of time in a way that remains viable on an ongoing basis. 489. In the Tribunal’s view, the use in Article 121(3) of the term “habitation” includes a qualitative element that is reflected particularly in the notions of settlement and residence that are inherent in that term. The mere presence of a small number of persons on a feature does not constitute permanent or habitual residence there and does not equate to habitation. Rather, the term habitation implies a non-transient presence of persons who have chosen to stay and reside on the feature in a settled manner. Human habitation would thus require all of the elements necessary to keep people alive on the feature, but would also require conditions sufficiently conducive to human life and livelihood for people to inhabit, rather than merely survive on, the feature.
6. Disputes heard. The case submitted by the Philippines to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) concerns eight maritime features that are currently under the control of China.
The first four are low tide elevations that are completely submerged: Mischief Reef, which is 130 nm from Palawan, Kennan Reef (180 nm), Gaven Reef (205 nm) and Subi Reef (230nm). The other four are rocks or reefs that are, at most, entitled to only 12 nm. These are Scarborough shoal, 120 nm from Luzon, Johnson reef 180 (nm from Palawan), Cuarteron reef (240nm from Palawan) and Fiery Cross reef (255 nm from Palawan).
Taiping Island, the largest of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, has an area of 46 hectares and the Republic of China in Taiwan stations a Cost Guard garrison there. It has a dock being enlarged to berth a 3,000-ton Cost Guard cutter, an airport that accommodates C-130 cargo planes, a weather station, a park and a temple.
Scholars comments on the Role of the arbitral tribunal
* Legal scholar Anthony Carty of University of Hong Kong states in a published book that the case has been criticized and the arbitration tribinal now faces a claim which is not justiciable.[75]
* Chinese Society of International Law, explains in a published report that the Award for the case is completely erroneous. It's against the principle of international law.[5]
* Abdul G. Koroma, former judge of the International Court of Justice, states that a tribunal is not allowed to pass judgement on a territorial and boundary dispute since a tribunal doesn't have competence nor power to judge such matter.[76]
* Wu Shicun, president and senior research fellow of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, says that China’s claims are based on historic evidence. Philippines' occupation of South China Sea islands is illegal. The arbitration is against international law, and the only way for a peaceful resolution is to respect the commitment to negotiations.[77]
* Stefan Talmon, director of the Institute of Public International Law at the University of Bonn, states that the Permanent Court of Arbitration does not have jurisdiction over territorial issues which are governed by customary international law, not UNCLOS.[78]
* Antonios Tzanakopoulos, associate professor of public international law at the University of Oxford, states in his published paper that the dispute of the case is obviously about sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Sovereignty and maritime delimitation are beyond the stipulation of the UNCLOS.[79][80]
* Tom Zwart, Professor of Law, Utrecht University, and director of the Cross-Cultural Human Rights Centre, states that the case breaks down the culture of harmony in Asia. To bring people together, tea should be offered, not a sword. In Asia, the award will be considered as the fruit of a poisonous tree. The case has so many actors and can affect many interests, justice can never be rendered, the dispute should not be handled by a judicial tribunal. The United States should be prevented from getting involved because it is not a direct stakeholder of this issue.[81][82]
* Australian international lawyers Rothwell[who?] and Stephens[who?] wrote in a published book that “[t]he Part XV dispute settlement mechanisms ... do not have jurisdiction over disputes arising under general international law”[5]
China's nine-dashed line
* Kuen-Chen Fu, dean of South China Sea Institute, Xiamen University, chief editor of China Oceans Law Review, states that in contract, a gesture like the nine-dashed line does not constitute an offer. China demarcated the u-shaped line with the help of the United States legal office in 1947. Countries including the Philippines and the United States were acknowledged the existence of the nine-dashed line. The US requested permission to visit the Spratly Islands in 1960.[21]
* Ted L. McDorman, professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Victoria, states in a published book that historic waters are not regulated under UNCLOS. The ICJ in the 1982 Tunisia/Libya case clearly stated that historic rights of waters are governed by customary international law, not UNCLOS.[84]
* John Norton Moore, director of the Center for National Security Law and the Center for Oceans Law and Policy, said that the China's nine-dash line claim is illegal and has no basis in the UNCLOS.[85] He also asserted that the nine-dashed line is not in China's interest, saying: "“If others were to do the same thing around the world, that China has done in the nine-dash line, it would be extremely harmful to the interests of China around the world.”[86]
* Wu Shicun, president and senior research fellow of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, stated that the China's nine-dash line came almost half a century ahead of the UNCLOS, there is no reason to ask the nine-dash line to conform to a later convention. The non-retroactivity is a basic principle of international law, the existing facts of the past cannot be overwritten [clarification needed] by today's law.[87]
Claims by the Philippines
* Heydarian wrote that the country is "engaged in a crucial effort to ensure all claimant states align their claims in accordance to prevailing international legal regimes," but also noted that "the Aquino administration may have placed too much emphasis on its inherently uncertain lawfare at the expense of much-needed bilateral dialogue with its powerful neighbor, which seems determined to snub and defy the ongoing hearing at The Hague at all costs."[88]
* Zou Keyuan, Harris Professor of International Law at the Lancashire Law School of the University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom, states in his published book that possible EEZ of the Spratly Archipelago is ignored in the Philippines' unilateral EEZ claim. Sovereignty over land territory always controls maritime jurisdiction. The Philippine argument of EEZ in the case may be an effort to muddy the juridical water and to try gain some international support for its weak sovereignty claim.[89]
* Kuan-Hsiung Wang, a professor at the Graduate Institute of Political Science, National Taiwan Normal University, has characterized the claims by the Philippines as "Dubious", opining that the Philippines is undermining efforts to resolve disputes and promote stability.[90]
* ce?]
Philippines v. China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China
Manila made 15 submissions to PCA tribunal, in particular whether Scarborough Shoal and low-tide areas like Mischief Reef can be considered islands. PCA tribunal set aside seven pointed claims mainly accusing Beijing of acting unlawfully. On 29 October 2015, the PCA tribunal ruled that it had the power to hear the case.
On 19 February 2013, China officially refused to participate in the arbitration because, according to China, its 2006 declaration under article 298[6] covers the disputes brought by the Philippines and that this case concerns sovereignty, thus it deems the arbitral tribunal formed for the case has no jurisdiction over the issue.[7]
On 12 July 2016, the tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines against China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea;[11][12] in its major ruling, the tribunal ruled that China has "no historical rights" based on the "nine-dash line" map.[11][12] China has rejected the ruling, as have Taiwan.[13][14]
The United Nations holds no position on the case, and the International Court of Justice has had no involvement.
Philippines v. China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki Philippines_v._China
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
PART XI OF THE CONVENTION
UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Article15
Delimitation of the territorial sea between States
with opposite or adjacent coasts
Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.
PART XV. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Article 298. Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2. 1.
When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf
