15 points PHL sought in case versus China

The Philippines won majority of its submissions to the court, which sought to invalidate China's sweeping claims over features in the South China Sea, including those within the country's exclusive economic zone.

Manila’s 15-point case—the first legal challenge ever brought in the dispute—sought clarification and definition of its maritime entitlements in the South China Sea under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of which more than 160 countries have signed, including the Philippines and China. 

It also contested China’s nine-dash line claim—a map featuring a U-shaped enclosure, first made public by Beijing in 1947—that placed almost the entire South China Sea, including parts of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, under its territory.

Beijing maintains “indisputable” and “historical” ownership over nearly the entire waters, which is home to one of the world’s vital sealanes, abundant fishing grounds, and huge deposits of oil, natural gas and minerals.

Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan are also contesting ownership to the waters.

The tribunal ruled that “there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources, in excess of the rights provided for by the Convention, within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line.’”

Former Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario welcomed the decision.

“We won!” Del Rosario said in a text message to GMA News Online.

Del Rosario spearheaded the filing of the landmark Philippine government arbitration case that challenged the validity of China's sprawling territorial claims in the South China Sea.

While the court has no enforcement power, analysts believe that the Philippines’ victory may encourage other South China Sea claimants to file similar cases against China.

The Philippines made 15 Submissions in these proceedings, requesting the Tribunal to find that:

(1) China’s maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, like those of the Philippines, may not extend beyond those expressly permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;

(2) China’s claims to sovereign rights jurisdiction, and to “historic rights”, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the so-called “nine-dash line” are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements expressly permitted by UNCLOS;

(3) Scarborough Shoal generates no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;

(4) Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, and are not features that are capable of appropriation by occupation or otherwise;

(5) Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines;

(6) Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including Hughes Reef) are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, but their low-water line may be used to determine the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Namyit and Sin Cowe, respectively, is measured;

(7) Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef generate no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;

(8) China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the sovereign rights of the Philippines with respect to the living and non-living resources of its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf;

(9) China has unlawfully failed to prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting the living resources in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines;

(10) China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by interfering with traditional fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal;

(11) China has violated its obligations under the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef;

(12) China’s occupation of and construction activities on Mischief Reef:

(a) violate the provisions of the Convention concerning artificial islands, installations and structures;

(b) violate China’s duties to protect and preserve the marine environment under the Convention; and

(c) constitute unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in violation of the Convention;

(13) China has breached its obligations under the Convention by operating its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner, causing serious risk of collision to Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal;

(14) Since the commencement of this arbitration in January 2013, China has unlawfully aggravated and extended the dispute by, among other things:

(a) interfering with the Philippines’ rights of navigation in the waters at, and adjacent to, Second Thomas Shoal;

(b) preventing the rotation and resupply of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal;

(c) endangering the health and well-being of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal; and (d) conducting dredging, artificial island-building and construction activities at Mischief Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef; and

(15) China shall respect the rights and freedoms of the Philippines under the Convention, shall comply with its duties under the Convention, including those relevant to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the South China Sea, and shall exercise its rights and freedoms in the South China Sea with due regard to those of the Philippines under the Convention.

While it ruled in favor of the Philippines in most of the 15 points, the tribunal disagreed with the Philippines regarding the status of Gaven Reef (North) and McKennan Reef and concluded that both are high tide features, meaning they generate an entitlement to at least 12 nautical mile territorial sea.

The tribunal also said that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second Thomas Shoal during a resupply mission by the Philippine Navy in 2014.

The incident, the court explained, “involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory settlement.”

However, it found that China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands “was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties’ dispute.”

A year after the Philippines sought third-party arbitration, China launched a massive island-building spree in the South China Sea in a bid to cement its claims over the resource-rich waters – an action, which many states believe has undermined regional stability and inflicted environmental damage on the most diverse marine environment in the world.  —NB, GMA News