SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE4the 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 29715 United Nations Convention on the Law,, art 29816 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

+13062052269

info@desklib.com