ITLOS_RP_v_PRC_Detailed_Presentation.pptx

Itlos PRC detailed legal case

1. The South China Sea Arbitration (Republic of the Philippines v. People’s Republic of China) PCA Award – 12 July 2016 Comprehensive Legal and Factual Analysis Based on the ITLOS/PCA Proceedings

2. Background of the Case Filed by the Republic of the Philippines on 22 January 2013 under Annex VII of UNCLOS, the case sought to clarify maritime rights in the South China Sea. The Philippines challenged China’s 'Nine-Dash Line,' its occupation and construction on maritime features, and interference with Philippine sovereign rights. Final Award rendered 12 July 2016, legally binding under Article 296 of UNCLOS.

3. Tribunal Composition and Venue Presiding Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Ghana). Members: Jean-Pierre Cot (France), Stanisław Pawlak (Poland), Alfred Soons (Netherlands), Rüdiger Wolfrum (Germany). Registry: Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), The Hague. China did not participate but submitted a Position Paper (7 Dec 2014) rejecting jurisdiction.

4. Legal Basis – UNCLOS Framework Articles 2–3: Sovereignty over territorial seas and breadth. Articles 56–58: Rights and duties in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Article 121(3): Definition of islands, rocks, and low-tide elevations. Articles 192–194: Protection and preservation of the marine environment. Annex VII: Compulsory arbitration for disputes concerning interpretation or application of UNCLOS.

5. Procedural Milestones 22 Jan 2013: Notification of Arbitration filed by the Philippines. 21 June 2013: Tribunal constituted under Annex VII. 7 Dec 2014: China issued its Position Paper on jurisdiction. 29 Oct 2015: Tribunal confirms jurisdiction on most submissions. 12 July 2016: Final Award issued, binding under Article 296 UNCLOS.

6. Philippines’ Legal Submissions Invalidity of the 'Nine-Dash Line' – inconsistent with UNCLOS (Arts. 56, 57, 76). Classification of maritime features under Art. 121(3). Unlawful interference by China in Philippines’ EEZ (Arts. 56, 77). Environmental damage due to land reclamation (Arts. 192–194). Breach of good faith and aggravation of dispute (Art. 300).

7. China’s Position China argued that the dispute was about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, excluded under Art. 298(1)(a)(i) UNCLOS. Claimed 'historic rights' within the 'Nine-Dash Line' predating UNCLOS. Advocated for bilateral negotiations; deemed arbitration 'a political provocation.'

8. Jurisdictional Findings Tribunal confirmed jurisdiction to interpret and apply UNCLOS, excluding sovereignty and boundary delimitation issues. UNCLOS Art. 288 and Annex VII authorize tribunals to decide disputes where no agreement on procedure exists. China’s absence did not prevent proceedings (Annex VII, Art. 9).

9. Status of Maritime Features Tribunal examined 15 maritime features including Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, Subi Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Johnson South Reef, and Scarborough Shoal. Findings under Art. 121(3): none qualified as 'islands'; some were 'rocks' with 12 nm territorial sea, others 'low-tide elevations' with no maritime zones. Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are low-tide elevations within the Philippines’ EEZ.

10. Invalidity of the 'Nine-Dash Line' Tribunal found no legal basis for China’s 'historic rights' within the Nine-Dash Line. UNCLOS supersedes any historic rights inconsistent with its zonal regime (Arts. 56–57). China’s 'Nine-Dash Line' claims were declared unlawful and without legal effect.

11. Violations of the Philippines’ Rights China interfered with Philippine oil exploration, fishing, and maritime operations within the EEZ (Arts. 56, 77). Deployment of coast guard vessels and fishing bans violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights. Tribunal cited repeated incidents around Reed Bank and Scarborough Shoal as breaches of UNCLOS.

12. Environmental Findings China’s island-building and dredging destroyed approximately 15,000 acres of coral reefs. Violation of obligations under Arts. 192 and 194 UNCLOS to protect marine ecosystems. Failure to assess environmental impacts (Art. 206) and to cooperate with other states.

13. Traditional Fishing at Scarborough Shoal Tribunal recognized centuries-old fishing by Filipino and Chinese fishermen at Scarborough Shoal. China’s exclusion of Filipino fishermen since 2012 violated traditional rights and due regard obligations under Art. 58(3). Traditional fishing rights may coexist with EEZ regimes when historically established.

14. Summary of the Tribunal’s Award 1. China’s 'Nine-Dash Line' has no legal basis under UNCLOS. 2. None of the maritime features in the Spratlys generate EEZs or continental shelves. 3. China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights within its EEZ and continental shelf. 4. China caused severe environmental damage (Arts. 192–194). 5. The Award is final and binding under Art. 296 UNCLOS.

15. Post-Award Developments China rejected the Award as 'null and void' and continued island-building and patrols. Philippines alternated between diplomatic engagement and legal assertion of the Award. International community, including the EU, U.S., and Japan, supported UNCLOS compliance.

16. Significance of the Award Affirmed primacy of UNCLOS over vague historic claims. Clarified Art. 121(3) interpretations—rocks vs. islands. Set precedent for environmental responsibility and sovereign rights enforcement at sea. Strengthened the rule of law in maritime dispute settlement.