## Facts

- The Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China are parties to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
- On January 22, 2013, the Philippines commenced arbitration under UNCLOS Annex VII concerning China’s maritime claims and conduct in the South China Sea, including at Scarborough Shoal and multiple features in the Spratly Islands (e.g., Mischief Reef, Subi Reef, Second Thomas Shoal).
- China declared in a February 19, 2013 note verbale that it would neither accept nor participate in the arbitration; it later issued a 2014 position paper contesting jurisdiction. The tribunal proceeded in China’s absence as permitted by Annex VII, while continuing to invite China to present views.
- The tribunal was constituted under Annex VII, with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague serving as registry; where China did not appoint an arbitrator, appointments were made through the Annex VII mechanism.
- The tribunal issued an Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on October 29, 2015, finding jurisdiction over most of the Philippines’ submissions (some subject to further consideration with the merits).
- The Philippines framed its claims as disputes on the interpretation and application of UNCLOS: the validity of “historic rights” claims reflected in the “nine-dash line,” the legal status of maritime features and resulting entitlements, and the legality under UNCLOS of certain Chinese actions affecting fisheries, hydrocarbon exploration, construction, and the marine environment.
- The tribunal repeatedly stated it would not decide which State has sovereignty over any land feature and would not delimit a maritime boundary between the parties.
- Evidence before the tribunal included the physical characteristics of the features (habitability, freshwater, vegetation, and capacity for sustained human community), patterns of historical use by fishermen of several States, and incidents involving Chinese law-enforcement and other vessels near Philippine vessels and installations.
- During the arbitration, China conducted large-scale land reclamation and construction activities on certain reefs in the Spratlys, which the Philippines argued increased harm to the marine environment and worsened the dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether UNCLOS allows China to claim “historic rights” to living and nonliving resources within the nine-dash line beyond maritime zones permitted by UNCLOS.
2. Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction over the Philippines’ submissions despite China’s non-participation and China’s objections that the dispute concerned sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation.
3. How specific South China Sea features (including in the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal) should be classified under UNCLOS—low-tide elevations, rocks, or islands—and what maritime zones, if any, they generate.
4. Whether China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights and related freedoms in areas found to be within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf by interfering with fishing and petroleum exploration and by building artificial islands and installations without consent.
5. Whether China breached international obligations on safety at sea (including COLREGs and UNCLOS Article 94) by vessel conduct creating serious risk of collision.
6. Whether China breached UNCLOS duties to protect and preserve the marine environment through destructive fishing practices and through large-scale dredging and island-building.
7. Whether China violated its obligation, once the dispute was submitted to compulsory procedures, not to aggravate or extend the dispute while proceedings were pending.

## Decision

- The tribunal issued a final, binding Award on July 12, 2016, largely in favor of the Philippines on the matters within its jurisdiction.
- It held there was no legal basis under UNCLOS for China to claim historic rights to resources in sea areas within the nine-dash line beyond the entitlements China can claim under UNCLOS.
- It concluded UNCLOS is a comprehensive allocation of maritime rights between States parties and, as between the Philippines and China, any claimed historic rights to resources that exceed UNCLOS-based maritime zones are not preserved.
- It determined that UNCLOS does not provide for a group of islands such as the Spratly Islands to generate maritime zones collectively as a single unit for a non-archipelagic State.
- Applying UNCLOS Articles 13 and 121, it classified multiple disputed features as low-tide elevations that generate no maritime zones of their own; it also found that none of the relevant Spratly features was a fully entitled “island” capable of generating an EEZ or continental shelf.
- Based on the resulting entitlements, it found that certain Chinese actions interfered with the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its EEZ and continental shelf, including interference with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration and construction of artificial islands/structures in areas the tribunal found to be within the Philippines’ EEZ.
- It found China violated obligations concerning safety at sea through dangerous maneuvers by Chinese vessels, contrary to applicable collision-avoidance rules and related UNCLOS duties.
- It found China breached UNCLOS environmental obligations by causing severe harm to coral reef environments through large-scale land reclamation and by failing to prevent destructive harvesting of protected species and harmful fishing methods by Chinese nationals in the relevant areas.
- It found that China’s large-scale construction activities during the pendency of the arbitration breached the duty not to aggravate or extend the dispute.
- It reiterated that it did not decide sovereignty over land territory and did not delimit any maritime boundary.

## Legal Principles

- A dispute on the interpretation or application of UNCLOS may remain within compulsory dispute settlement even if related factual background includes contested sovereignty, so long as resolving the submission does not require deciding sovereignty or delimiting a maritime boundary.
- Non-participation by a respondent does not bar Annex VII proceedings; the tribunal must still satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction and that the claimant’s factual and legal assertions are sufficiently supported.
- UNCLOS allocates maritime zones and resource rights through treaty rules; claims of “historic rights” to resources are not maintained where they conflict with the EEZ and continental shelf regimes established by UNCLOS.
- Low-tide elevations (UNCLOS Art. 13) generate no territorial sea, EEZ, or continental shelf of their own; construction on them does not create new maritime entitlements.
- Under UNCLOS Article 121(3), features that cannot sustain human habitation or an economic life of their own are “rocks” that may generate, at most, a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea and not an EEZ or continental shelf; temporary presence dependent on outside supply does not satisfy the standard.
- In another State’s EEZ and continental shelf, interference with fishing and hydrocarbon exploration, or unilateral construction of installations, may violate the coastal State’s sovereign rights and related UNCLOS provisions.
- States have due-diligence obligations under UNCLOS Part XII to protect and preserve the marine environment, including preventing destructive fishing practices and avoiding significant harm from dredging and reclamation under their control.
- Once a dispute is submitted to compulsory procedures, parties must refrain from conduct that aggravates or extends the dispute while proceedings are ongoing.
- International collision-avoidance rules (COLREGs), together with UNCLOS duties concerning safety and control over vessels, apply to relevant vessel conduct and can ground findings of breach where actions create serious collision risk.

## Conclusion

In a final Annex VII UNCLOS award administered by the PCA, the tribunal rejected China’s nine-dash line “historic rights” claim beyond UNCLOS entitlements, held that none of the relevant Spratly features generated an EEZ, and found China breached UNCLOS by interfering with Philippine EEZ and continental-shelf rights, causing major marine-environment harm, engaging in unsafe vessel conduct, and worsening the dispute during the proceedings, while leaving sovereignty and boundary delimitation undecided.


In re South China Sea Arbitration (Phil. v. China), PCA Case No. 2013-19, Award (Perm. Ct. Arb. July 12, 2016)