South China Sea Arbitration Case Analysis

This assignment requires an in-depth analysis of the South China Sea arbitration case between the Philippines and China, focusing on the legal arguments presented by both sides. Students must examine the Permanent Court of Arbitration's ruling and its implications for international law, regional security, and the future of maritime disputes in the region. The analysis should draw upon provided legal sources and scholarly articles to support claims and interpretations.

(college name: )

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE 2
Philippines v. China1, also referred to as the South China Sea Arbitration case, is a case which
was brought by the Republic of the Philippines against People’s Republic of China. The case was
made based on the UNCLOS2, which stands for United Nations Convention on the Law,
particularly its Annex VII3. The defendant claimed on the issues relating to nine-dotted line and
the issues in South China Sea4. China made a declaration in 2013 regarding not taking part in the
arbitration procedure and in 2014 published a white paper where they elaborated their position.
The arbitral tribunal considered the fifteen submissions made by Philippines and ruled that they
had the proper jurisdiction in this matter. After considering the entire case, in 2016, the ruling
was given in the favor of Philippines5. The following parts contain a critical analysis of this case,
with a particular reference to the UNCLOS.
Before critiquing the case, there is a need to understand the factual background of this case. In
2013, a complaint was filed by Philippines once China took control over the reef which was
located 140 miles away from the Philippines Coast. This resulted in China being accused of
violating the international laws as the ships were endangered and the fishing was interfered with,
along with the failure on part of China in safeguarding the reef’s marine environment, famously
known as the Scarborough Shoal. Philippines asked international tribunal to reject the claims
which made by China, whereby the sovereignty of water was with China which had been located
within the 9 dash line and which was clearly placed on the official maps of China6.
Approximately 90% of these dashes were covered the South China Sea, which was equivalent to
1 (PCA case number 2013–19)
2 United Nations Convention on the Law
3 United Nations Convention on the Law, Annex VII
4 AMTI, “Arbitration on the South China Sea: Rulings from The Hague” (2016) AMTI
<https://amti.csis.org/ArbitrationTL/>
5 Permanent Court of Arbitration, “The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's
Republic of China)” (2017) Permanent Court of Arbitration <http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7>
6 Permanent Court of Arbitration, “Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines” (2015) Permanent Court of
Arbitration <https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1503>

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE 3
size of Mexico and was deemed significant for the international trade owing to the fact that this
area was rich in natural resources and even had the possibility of oil deposits. Philippines blamed
China for breaching the international laws due to the dredging the sand for creating the artificial
island from the reefs which were located in South China Sea and included the water7.
The major issue which was made by Philippines in this case was the invalidity of the Chinese
claims regarding the 9 dotted line as the UNCLOS agreement was breached in the matter of
exclusive economic zones and territorial seas8. The reason for this was that most of the features
of South China Sea, particularly the Spratly Island, could not sustain life and a defined in the
UNCLOS, it could not be granted continental shelf9.
China, on the other hand, denied the participation in the arbitration proceedings stating that the
treaties with Philippines required bilateral negotiations to be used for solving the disputes which
were related to border. China accused Philippines of breaching the voluntary declaration which
was made in 2002 between ASEAN and China containing the resolution of disputes through
bilateral negations in the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea10. The position paper issued
by China in 2014 argued that the nation was no subjected to arbitration as the same was not an
exploitation of rights, but an issue of sovereignty11.
The complaint was filed under UNCLOS where the rules pertaining to usage of oceans across the
globe are contained. The treaty formed in 1994, was ratified by both the nations, in addition to
7 Jane Perle, “Philippines v. China: Q. and A. on South China Sea Case” (2016) New York Times
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/world/asia/south-china-sea-philippines-hague.html?_r=0>
8 At 6
9 Michaela Del Callar, “ITLOS completes five-man tribunal that will hear PHL case vs. China” (2013) GMA News
Online <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/305570/itlos-completes-five-man-tribunal-that-will-hear-
phl-case-vs-china/story/>
10 Greg Torode, “Philippines South China Sea legal case against China gathers pace” (2013) Reuters
<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-philippines-idUSBRE98Q0BX20130927>
11 Ben Blanchard, “China says U.S. trying to influence Philippines' sea case” (2015) Reuters
<http://www.reuters.com/article/southchinasea-china-usa-idUSL3N1043AM20150724>

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE 4
the EU and 165 states. This treaty stated that the sovereignty over water of any nation was
extended to 12 nautical miles from the coast of the nation and such nation had the control on the
economic activities in water on continental shelf, in addition to control up to 200 nautical miles
from the cost of the nation12. The sovereignty on artificial island’s construction, fishing, mining
and oil exploration was included in this. The detailed rules for defining these zones and the way
of deciding a dispute through suggestions in cases of overlapping of two nations is provided
through this treaty13.
A submission was also made by Philippines for the jurisdiction on the basis of Article 29714 and
29815 of UNCLOS. They stated that it was the right of the nation to resolve the clash peacefully
and China owed an obligation of not aggravating or extending the dispute till the attainment of
resolution. Though, the actions of China were aggravating and extending the dispute16. In this
regard, the decision of International Justice in the matter of Electricity Company of Sofia and
Bulgaria17 was also cited by Philippines. In this case the judges had recognized universally
accepted principles regarding the parties of case to not do something which can result in dispute
being aggravated. Philippines also acknowledged that the articulation of this principle regarding
the provisional measures decision was commonly invoked here. Reference by Philippines was
also made to United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran18. And this was supported
12 Katie Hunt, “Philippines vs. China: Court to rule on South China Sea fight” (2016) CNN
<http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/11/asia/philippines-china-south-china-sea-hague-ruling/>
13 Permanent Court of Arbitration, “PCA Case Nº 2013-19” (2016) Permanent Court of Arbitration < https://pca-
cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf >
14 United Nations Convention on the Law, art 297
15 United Nations Convention on the Law,, art 298
16 He Yafei, “The Truth Behind the Philippines’ Case on the South China Sea” (2016) Huffington Post
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/he-yafei/philippines-south-china-sea_b_10928374.html>
17 (Belgium v. Bulgaria), Interim Measures of Protection, Order of 5 December 1939, PCIJ Series A/B, No. 79, p.
199 (5 December 1939)
18 (United States v. Iran), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1980

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE 5
by Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in South China Sea and Declaration on the Conduct of
Parties in South China Sea’s Para 519.
China made a claim that the 9 dash line had water beyond these zones and the historical evidence
was present to support this claim. Though, the tribunal rejected these claims and stated that the
historic rights with China had extinguished owing to this treaty’s applicability. The tribunal
further went on to state that the fisher and the navigators of China made use of island in the sea
earlier; though, there was nothing to show that they had an exclusive authority over the waters or
resources20. The tribunal rightly highlighted on the duty of China to refrain from extending or
aggravating the dispute particularly when the dispute proceedings were going on and this was
central to the good faith in international legal relations present between the two nations. There
was no need of going beyond the UNCLOS test as per the tribunal for finding the source of law
applicable on parties conduct when the dispute settlement was going on pursuant to Part XV of
UNCLOS21.
The tribunal unanimously granted the majority of claims made by Philippines and stated
different rulings for reshaping the discourse of this dispute for the coming years. The tribunal
characterized the historic rights claim of China at the outset which was represented through 9
dash line map. These rights were stated to have been abandoned by China upon signing and
ratifying UNCLOS, whereby it agreed with the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) establishment,
along with the continental shelf regimes regarding favoring the coastal areas. Also, the features
in Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal were characterized in a comprehensive manner by the
19 At 13
20 Nikolaos Lavranos and Ruth A. Kok, Hague Yearbook of International Law / Annuaire de La Haye de Droit
International (Brill Nijhoff, Boston, 2014)
21 Jay Batongbacal, “Philippines vs. China in the South China Sea: Beijing at a Geopolitical Crossroads” (2016)
National Interest <http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/philippines-vs-china-the-south-china-sea-beijing-17014>

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE 6
tribunal. The only thing which was disputed was the island and rocks which formed pockets
having territorial sovereignty. Though, based on UNCLOS to the neighboring costal states, these
could be allocated jurisdictionally22.
The Tribunal also held that Chinese intrusion in exploration activities related to petroleum, the
construction of artificial island and the Filipino fishing, where there was a failure of preventing
the Chinese fishermen from finishing in Philippines’s EEZ was a clear breach of Philippines’s
sovereign rights over EEZ and the continental shelf. The tribunal determined that the seven
artificial islands’ construction by China and failure in prevention of fishermen from conducting
dishing practices which could be classified as destructive was a breach of Chinese obligations
related to preservation and protection of marine environment23. The actions of China were such
which resulted in eternal harm to marine environment and acted unjustly against Philippines’s
rights. All this led the tribunal to state that the actions of China were such that they breached the
international laws, particularly by aggravating the dispute. The tribunal hence gave its award on
the basis of UNCLOS which, after being published in the Permanent Court of Arbitration
became final and binding24.
The decision given in this case was amongst the historic and landmark decision of the recent
history and was rightly stated to be a great triumph for Philippines. Even after the ruling of this
case, the decision was nota accepted by the People’s Republic of China. And a statement was
issued by tem where the ruling was rejected by them and argued it to be null. They decided to
ignore the ruling and stated that the decision of the arbitral tribunal was not required to be
22 Ibid
23 Ibid
24 Jacques deLisle and Avery Goldstein, China's Global Engagement: Cooperation, Competition, and Influence in
the 21st Century (Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC, 2017)

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE 7
adhered by them25. Another possible solution of this dispute could have been the acceptance of
the arbitral award by China, as this would have resulted in the dispute being solved after the
passing of this award. However, the actions of China were such that the dispute still continues.
Since it was proved without any doubts that the arbitration tribunal had the jurisdiction over the
dispute in matter and also since the claims of China had been proved wrong, the alternate
solution was the acceptance by China. The possibility of adopting the solution, where the claims
of China were proved right, would not have been right, owing to the lack of proper evidence to
support the claims made by China.
To conclude, the arbitral award granted in this case not only had major implications, but also sent
chain reaction in the Southeast Asian region, in addition to the remaining Asia-Pacific region.
Through this award, the door for Chinese claims regarding the maritime jurisdictions being
excessive in the South China Sea based on historical rights were closed. The clarification
regarding the Philippines’s right to continent shelf, along with the EEZ out of disputed enclave
was related to the rocks or island which were outside and also the mainland costs and the South
China Sea had the option of either the costal state exclusive resource rights or the common
international uses. It is only natural that within the South China Sea, the small littoral states
would be benefited from the lawful reinforcement of the EEZ, along with the continental shelf
entitlements which extend from mainland coasts. In case, after the passing of this award, China
makes any attempt for enforcing their claims, the international law would make it unlawful. This
would further result in the coastal states becoming eligible for undertaking lawful actions for
defending both their rights and their jurisdiction26.
25 Tom Phillips, Oliver Holmes and Owen Bowcott, “Beijing rejects tribunal's ruling in South China Sea case”
(2016) The Guardian <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-
against-china>
26 At 21

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE 8

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE 9
Bibliography
A. Cases
Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Belgium v. Bulgaria), Interim Measures of
Protection, Order of 5 December 1939, PCIJ Series A/B, No. 79, p. 199 (5 December 1939)
Philippines v. China (PCA case number 2013–19)
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran), Judgment, ICJ
Reports 1980
B. Treaties
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
C. Books
Jacques deLisle and Avery Goldstein, China's Global Engagement: Cooperation, Competition,
and Influence in the 21st Century (Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC, 2017)
Nikolaos Lavranos and Ruth A. Kok, Hague Yearbook of International Law / Annuaire de La
Haye de Droit International (Brill Nijhoff, Boston, 2014)
D. Internet Sources
AMTI, “Arbitration on the South China Sea: Rulings from The Hague” (2016) AMTI
<https://amti.csis.org/ArbitrationTL/>

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE 10
Ben Blanchard, “China says U.S. trying to influence Philippines' sea case” (2015) Reuters
<http://www.reuters.com/article/southchinasea-china-usa-idUSL3N1043AM20150724>
Greg Torode, “Philippines South China Sea legal case against China gathers pace” (2013)
Reuters <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-philippines-idUSBRE98Q0BX20130927>
He Yafei, “The Truth behind the Philippines’ Case on the South China Sea” (2016) Huffington
Post <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/he-yafei/philippines-south-china-sea_b_10928374.html>
Jane Perle, “Philippines v. China: Q. and A. on South China Sea Case” (2016) New York Times
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/world/asia/south-china-sea-philippines-hague.html?
_r=0>
Jay Batongbacal, “Philippines vs. China in the South China Sea: Beijing at a Geopolitical
Crossroads” (2016) National Interest <http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/philippines-vs-
china-the-south-china-sea-beijing-17014>
Katie Hunt, “Philippines vs. China: Court to rule on South China Sea fight” (2016) CNN
<http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/11/asia/philippines-china-south-china-sea-hague-ruling/>
Michaela Del Callar, “ITLOS completes five-man tribunal that will hear PHL case vs. China”
(2013) GMA News Online <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/305570/itlos-
completes-five-man-tribunal-that-will-hear-phl-case-vs-china/story/>
Permanent Court of Arbitration, “Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines” (2015)
Permanent Court of Arbitration <https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1503>
Permanent Court of Arbitration, “PCA Case Nº 2013-19” (2016) Permanent Court of Arbitration
< https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf >

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE 11
Permanent Court of Arbitration, “The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines
v. The People's Republic of China)” (2017) Permanent Court of Arbitration
<http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7>
Tom Phillips, Oliver Holmes and Owen Bowcott, “Beijing rejects tribunal's ruling in South
China Sea case” (2016) The Guardian
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-
against-china>