PublishedonASIL(https://www.asil.org(https://www.asil.

org))
Home(/)>TheSouthChinaSeaArbitration

TheSouthChinaSeaArbitration
Volume:20
Issue:17
Author:TedL.McDorman
Insight:
Introduction
Sincethe1970s,theSouthChinaSeahasbeenanestofcompetingsovereigntyclaimsovertheislandfeaturesand
oceanspacesbyanumberofadjacentcountries.IncludedinthisisChinasninedashline,firstofficially
communicatedinnotesverbaletotheUnitedNationsin2009.[1](/print/5022#_ftn1)Inaddition,Chinahasrecently
engagedin,amongstotherthings,thephysicalenhancementofmanyofthesmallfeaturesoftheSpratlyIslands
andenforcementofamoratoriumonfishingintheSouthChinaSea.
ThedecisionoftheSouthChinaSeaArbitration[2](/print/5022#_ftn2)byatribunalestablishedpursuanttotheUN
ConventionontheLawoftheSea[3](/print/5022#_ftn3)(UNCLOS)haslandedinthiscauldron.UNCLOSprovides
forcompulsoryadjudicationofdisputesconcerningtheinterpretationandapplicationoftheConvention,subjecttoa
numberofexceptions.In2013,thePhilippinescommencedthecaseagainstChina.[4](/print/5022#_ftn4)Althougha
longstandingpartytotheConvention,ChinadeclinedtoparticipateintheestablishmentoftheTribunalortoappear
beforeit.[5](/print/5022#_ftn5)Indecidingnottoappear,Chinahasfollowedasmallnumberofstatesthathave
similarlydeclinedtoparticipateincasesbeforetheInternationalCourtofJustice(ICJ),aswellasthemorerecent
nonparticipationbytheRussianFederationinUNCLOSproceduresintheArcticSunriseCasebroughtbythe
Netherlands.[6](/print/5022#_ftn6)
TherewerefifteenPhilippineSubmissionsdealtwithbytheTribunal.[7](/print/5022#_ftn7)TheSubmissionsthat
havereceivedthemostpostdecisionattentionandthatarethefocusofthisInsightincludethelegalvalidityof
ChinasclaimofrightswithintheninedashlineinlightofUNCLOSandwhatifanymaritimezonesappertainto
theinsularfeaturesintheSouthChinaSea.
Chinaviewedtheprincipalsubjectmattersindisputeaspoliticalandbeyondthejurisdictionandcompetenceofthe
Tribunal.ThePhilippinescharacterizedthesubjectmattersindisputeasinvolvingtheinterpretationandapplication
ofUNCLOSandthuswithinthejurisdictionoftheTribunal.Asaresultofthisdifferenceofviews,itwasnecessaryfor
theTribunaltoassesswhetherithadjurisdictiontodealwiththemeritsofthePhilippinesubmissions.
TheTribunalheldthatithadjurisdictiontoconsiderthemeritsofalmostalltheSubmissionsmadebythePhilippines
and,overall,acceptedtheclaimsandargumentsonthemeritsassertedbythePhilippines.[8](/print/5022#_ftn8)
LegalStatusoftheAward
UNCLOS,theinternationallegalbasisforthearbitration,isveryclearinAnnexVII,Arbitration,Article11that[t]he
awardofthearbitraltribunalshallbefinalandbindingandwithoutappeal....Itshallbecompliedwithbythe
partiestothedispute.[9](/print/5022#_ftn9)
Hence,thereisnoargumenttobemadethatnonappearancebyastatechangesoreffectsthefinalandbinding
natureoftheAward.Moreover,whileChinahasassertedbothafterthereleaseofthe2015AwardonJurisdiction
andthe2016Awardthatthebotharenullandvoidandhavenobindingforce,[10](/print/5022#_ftn10)thereisno
legalbasisinUNCLOSforsuchassertions.
ChinahasfurtherstatedthatitneitheracceptsnorrecognizestheAward.[11](/print/5022#_ftn11)Thereisa
modestpracticeofstatesoptingnottoacceptorrecognize,andthusnotcomplywith,decisionsoftheICJ,the
InternationalTribunalfortheLawoftheSea(ITLOS),andatribunalestablishedpursuanttoUNCLOS.
Rocks/LowTideElevationsorIslands
Jurisdiction
ThePhilippinesarguedthattheTribunalhadjurisdictiontodeterminewhethercertaininsularfeaturesintheSouth
ChinaSeawereeitherrocks(entitledtoa12nmterritorialsea),lowtideelevationsnoterritorialsea),orislands
(entitledtoa200nmzone),eventhoughthefeaturesinquestionweresubjecttoterritorialsovereigntydisputes,as
thisinvolvedinterpretationoftherelevantprovisionsofUNCLOS.[12](/print/5022#_ftn12)
Chinadirectlycounteredthis,arguingthattheheartofthedisputeconcernedterritorialsovereignty,notthe
interpretationorapplicationofUNCLOS.[13](/print/5022#_ftn13)Inthealternative,Chinaarguedthattherockor
islanddeterminationconcernedmaritimeboundarydelimitation,which,asresultofChinasDeclarationofAugust26,
2006,[14](/print/5022#_ftn14)wasexemptedfromcompulsoryadjudicativejurisdictionunderUNCLOS.[15]
(/print/5022#_ftn15)
Inreachingtheconclusionthatithadjurisdictiontodeterminethestatusofthecontestedfeatures,theTribunal
statedthatitdoesnotaccept...thatitfollowsfromtheexistenceofadisputeoversovereigntythatsovereigntyis
alsotheappropriatecharacterizationofthePhilippineclaimsthatthefeatureswererocksorlowtideelevations.[16]
(/print/5022#_ftn16)Inmakingthisdetermination,itnotedthatnoneofthePhilippineSubmissionsrequireda
determinationofsovereignty.[17](/print/5022#_ftn17)
TheTribunaldidnotacceptChinasassessmentofthedisputeasinvolvingmaritimeboundarydelimitation,stating
thatitwasnotconvinced,andthat[i]tdoesnotfollow...thatadisputeoveranissuethatmaybeconsideredin
thecourseofamaritimeboundarydelimitationconstitutesadisputeovermaritimeboundarydelimitationitself.[18]
(/print/5022#_ftn18)Morespecifically,theTribunalcommentedthatentitlementtomaritimezonesisdistinctfrom
delimitationofthosezonesinanareawhereentitlementsoverlap.[19](/print/5022#_ftn19)
Merits
IntheperiodimmediatelypriortotheissuingoftheAward,Chinahadsignificantlymodifiedandenhancednumerous
featuresintheSpratlyIslands.TheTribunalclearlystatedthatUNCLOSrequiresthatthestatusofafeaturebe
ascertainedonthebasisofitsearlier,naturalcondition,priortotheonsetofsignificanthumanhabitation.[20]
(/print/5022#_ftn20)
TheTribunalacceptedthatinordertoexaminetheSubmissionsregardingthelocationofthePhilippineexclusive
economiczone(EEZ),itwasnecessarytodeterminethelegalstatusofalloftherelevanthightidefeaturesthatare
partoftheSpratlyIslands.[21](/print/5022#_ftn21)TheTribunalfocuseduponthesixlargestfeatures,observing
thatifthesewerecharacterizedasrocksunderUNCLOS,thenthesameconclusionwouldapplytotheotherhigh
tidefeaturesintheSpratlyIslands.[22](/print/5022#_ftn22)
Unlikepreviousinternationaltribunalsthathadacceptedcertainfeaturesasislandsorrockswithoutexplicitly
applyingUNCLOSArticle121(3),[23](/print/5022#_ftn23)theTribunalanalyzeditsapplicationindetail.[24]
(/print/5022#_ftn24)TheTribunalsinterpretationplacedgreatemphasisonthephysicalconditionsofthefeaturein
questionsuchasthenaturalcapacity,withoutexternaladditions...tosustainhumanhabitationoraneconomiclife
ofitsown.[25](/print/5022#_ftn25)TheTribunalalsodelvedintothedefinitionofthetermsinvolvedinthisstandard.
Additionally,theTribunaldirectedthatwherethephysicalconditionsdidnotdetermineclearlywhetherafeatureisa
rockorislandthenthehistoricalusewillberelevant.Inthisregard,theTribunalconcludedthatafeaturethathas
neverhistoricallysustainedahumancommunitylacksthecapacitytosustainhumanhabitation.[26]
(/print/5022#_ftn26)
ApplyingtheirunderstandingofArticle121(3)totherelevanthightidefeaturesintheSpratlyIslands,theTribunal
notedthatalthoughthefeatureswerecapableofenablingthesurvivalofsmallgroupsofpeople[27]
(/print/5022#_ftn27)andthatthefeaturescouldnotbedismissedasuninhabitableonthebasisoftheirphysical
characteristics,nevertheless,therewasnoindicationthatanythingfairlyresemblingastablehumancommunity
haseverformedontheSpratlyIslandswiththeresultthatallofthehightidefeatureswereclassedasrocks.[28]
(/print/5022#_ftn28)
TheNineDashLineandHistoricRights[29](/print/5022#_ftn29)
TheprincipaljurisdictionalquestionconcerningtheninedashlineandpossibleChinesehistoricrightsthereinwas
whethersuchaclaimwascapturedbythewordingofArticle298(1)(a)(i)ofUNCLOS,coveringdisputes...involving
historicbaysortitle[30](/print/5022#_ftn30)andthusthattheTribunalwaswithoutjurisdictionduetoChinas2006
Declaration.[31](/print/5022#_ftn31)Onthemerits,atissuewastherelationshipbetweenthehistoricrightsasserted
byChinawithintheninedashlineandtherightsofthePhilippinesbasedonUNCLOSinareasbeyondChinasEEZ
orcontinentalshelfandwithintheEEZorcontinentalshelfofthePhilippines.
Todealwithbothquestions,theTribunalassessedthenatureofanyhistoricrightsclaimedbyChinawithinthe
ninedashline,whichwascomplicatedbysomeambiguityinChinasposition.[32](/print/5022#_ftn32)TheTribunal
undertookanexaminationofChinasstatementsandactions[33](/print/5022#_ftn33)concludingthatChinaclaims
rightstolivingandnonlivingresourceswithintheninedashlinebut(apartfromtheterritorialseageneratedbyany
islands)doesnotconsiderthatthosewatersformpartofitsterritorialseaorinternalwaters.[34](/print/5022#_ftn34)
TheTribunalindicatedthatthetermhistorictitleinArticle298centeredonthehistorictitlewordinginArticle12(1)of
the1958ConventionontheTerritorialSeaandContiguousZone.[35](/print/5022#_ftn35)TheTribunaltooktheview
thatthe1958historictitlewordingwastieddirectlytothehistoricterminologyasusedinthe1951AngloNorwegian
Fisheriescase,wheretheareainquestionwasanareaofseaclaimedexceptionallyasinternalwaters.[36]
(/print/5022#_ftn36)Baseduponthis,theTribunaltooktheviewthatthemeaningofhistorictitleinArticle298was
claimstosovereigntyovermaritimeareasderivedfromhistoricalcircumstances.[37](/print/5022#_ftn37)Having
determinedthatChinawasclaiminghistoricrightsandnothistorictitle,theTribunalconcludedthatChinas2006
DeclarationwasnotavailableasregardsChinashistoricclaims.[38](/print/5022#_ftn38)
Concerningthemerits,therelationshipbetweenthehistoricrightsassertedbyChinawithintheninedashlineand
therightsofthePhilippinesbasedonUNCLOS,theTribunalsidedwiththePhilippinesconcludingthatUNCLOS
leavesnospaceforanassertionofhistoricrights,andthatChinasclaimtohistoricrightstothelivingandnon
livingresourceswithintheninedashlineisincompatiblewiththeConvention.[39](/print/5022#_ftn39)
ConcludingComments
Intheimmediateaftermath,thereactionsindicatelittlehopethattheSouthChinaSeaAwardwillresultinaperiodof
peacefulmanagementofthetangleddisputeswithintheSouthChinaSea.ChinahasloudlycondemnedtheAward
andajointstatementfromASEANandChinadidnotevenmentionit.Somewhatmoreencouragingarethe
preparatorytalksthathavetakenplacebetweenthePhilippinesandChina.[40](/print/5022#_ftn40)
IthaslongbeenrecognizedbythosewhohaveasignificanthistorywiththeSouthChinaSeadisputesthatifthe
numerousmaritimefeaturesintheSouthChinaSeawereallcategorizedaseitherlowtideelevationorrocks,the
resultwouldbethatthe200nmzonesintheregionwouldbemeasuredfromthemainlandcoasts.Thiswouldcause
almostallofthemaritimeclaimdisputestobecomebilateral,ratherthanmultilateral,whichcouldinturncreatea
possibilityforresolutionanddeescalation.Partofthisaswellisthattheninedashlinebewithoutlegaleffect.Asof
2009,theSouthChinaSeaASEANstatesadvocatedsuchaposition.[41](/print/5022#_ftn41)Inlightofthe
Tribunalsruling,thiscouldbeapotentialpathforward.
Article121(3)wasaprovisionofdeliberatelynegotiatedvagueness,thusTribunalsrock/islandcriteriacanbeviewed
perhapsasmissionarywork.TherockorislandcriteriaintheAwardmayresultinstatesabletomorereadilyreach
maritimeboundaryagreementsandadjudicativebodiesmorereadilymakesuchdeterminations.Itwillbefuture
tribunals,courts,andstatepracticethatwilldeterminewhetherthismissionaryaspectoftheAwardfindsfavour.
Offinalnote,concernsaboutwhethertheAwardandChinasrejectionofithaveunderminedconfidenceinUNCLOS
disputeresolutionproceduresareperhapsmisplaced.SubsequenttothecommencementoftheSouthChinaSea
Arbitration,threepartieshavebroughtcasesbeforeITLOSandtwohavecommencedUNCLOS,AnnexVII
arbitrationcases.

AbouttheAuthor:TedL.McDormanisaprofessorintheFacultyofLawattheUniversityofVictoria,British
Columbia,Canada

[1](/print/5022#_ftnref1)PermanentMissionofChinatotheU.N.,LetterDatedMay7,2009,fromthePermanent
MissionofChinatotheUnitedNationsaddressedtotheSecretaryGeneral,U.N.Doc.CML/17/2009(May7,2009)
PermanentMissionofChinatotheU.N.,LetterDatedMay7,2009,fromthePermanentMissionofChinatothe
UnitedNationsaddressedtotheSecretaryGeneral,U.N.Doc.CML/18/2009(May7,2009).
[2](/print/5022#_ftnref2)InreArbitrationBetweentheRepublicofthePhilippinesandthePeople'sRepublicof
China,PCACaseNo.201319,JurisdictionandAdmissibility(Oct.29,2015),http://www.pcacpa.org
(http://www.pcacpa.org)[1] [hereinafterAwardonJurisdiction]InreArbitrationBetweentheRepublicofthe
PhilippinesandthePeople'sRepublicofChina,PCACaseNo.201319,Award(July12,2016),http://www.pca
cpa.org(http://www.pcacpa.org)[1] [hereinafterAward].

[3](/print/5022#_ftnref3)UnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea,Dec.10,1982,1833U.N.T.S.397
(enteredintoforceNov.16,1994)[hereinafterUNCLOS].
[4](/print/5022#_ftnref4)InreArbitrationBetweentheRepublicofthePhilippinesandthePeople'sRepublicof
China,PCACaseNo.201319,PhilippinesMemorial,Vol.III,Annex1(Jan.22,2013)CJeoberVII,art.11.he
disputeearbitration,dthelegalstatusofinsularfeaturesintheSouthChinaSea.CJeoberVII,art.11.hedisputee
arbitration,dthelegalstatusofinsularfeaturesintheSouthChinaSea.[hereinafterPhilippinesMemorial],available
athttp://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20
%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%20160%29
(http://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20
%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%20160%29)[2]

[5](/print/5022#_ftnref5)Seeid.,Annex2,3.
[6](/print/5022#_ftnref6)SeeArcticSunrise(Neth.v.Russ.),ITLOSCaseNo.22,RequestforthePrescriptionof
ProvisionalMeasures,OrderofNov.22,201,[hereinafterArcticSunrise],availableat
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.22/Order/C22_Ord_22_11_2013_orig_Eng.pdf
(https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.22/Order/C22_Ord_22_11_2013_orig_Eng.pdf)[3] .

[7](/print/5022#_ftnref7)Award,supranote2,at112.
[8](/print/5022#_ftnref8)Id.1203.
[9](/print/5022#_ftnref9)UNCLOS,supranote3,AnnexVII,art.11(emphasisadded).
[10](/print/5022#_ftnref10)StatementoftheMinistryofForeignAffairsontheAwardonJurisdictionandAdmissibility
oftheSouthChinaSeaArbitrationbytheArbitralTribunalEstablishedattheRequestoftheRepublicofthe
Philippines,MinistryofForeignAff.PeoplesRepublicofChina(Oct.30,2015),
www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1310474.shtml
(http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1310474.shtml)[4] StatementoftheMinistryofForeignAffairson
theAwardof12July2016oftheArbitralTribunalEstablishedattheRequestoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,
MinistryofForeignAff.PeoplesRepublicofChina(July12,2016),at
www.fmprc.gov.cn/nanhai/eng/snhwtlcwj_1/t1379492.htm
(http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/nanhai/eng/snhwtlcwj_1/t1379492.htm)[5] [hereinafterJulyForeignMinistryStatement].

[11](/print/5022#_ftnref11)JulyForeignMinistryStatement,supranote10.
[12](/print/5022#_ftnref12)AwardonJurisdiction,supranote2,at140.
[13](/print/5022#_ftnref13)PositionPaperontheMatterofJurisdictionintheSouthChinaSeaArbitrationInitiatedby
theRepublicofthePhilippines,MinistryofForeignAff.PeoplesRepublicofChina(Dec.7,2014),
www.fmprc.gov.cn/nanhai/eng/snhwtlcwj_1/t1368899.htm
(http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/nanhai/eng/snhwtlcwj_1/t1368899.htm)[6] .

[14](/print/5022#_ftnref14)DeclarationsandStatements,DivisionforOceanAffairsandtheLawoftheSea(Aug.26,
2006),http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm#China
(http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm#China)[7] afterratification
[hereinafterChinaDeclaration].
[15](/print/5022#_ftnref15)UNCLOS,supranote3,art.298(1)(a)(i).
[16](/print/5022#_ftnref16)AwardonJurisdiction,supranote2,at152.
[17](/print/5022#_ftnref17)Id.153.
[18](/print/5022#_ftnref18)Id.155.
[19](/print/5022#_ftnref19)Id.156.
[20](/print/5022#_ftnref20)Award,supranote2,306.
[21](/print/5022#_ftnref21)Id.39396.
[22](/print/5022#_ftnref22)Id.407.
[23](/print/5022#_ftnref23)UNCLOS,supranote3,art.121.
[24](/print/5022#_ftnref24)Award,supranote2,475538.
[25](/print/5022#_ftnref25)Id.542.
[26](/print/5022#_ftnref26)Id.549.
[27](/print/5022#_ftnref27)Id.615.
[28](/print/5022#_ftnref28)Id.62122.ItuAba(Taiping)isunderthecontrolofTaiwan.
[29](/print/5022#_ftnref29)Partofthissectionhasbeendrawn,withmodification,fromT.L.McDorman,The2016
SouthChinaSeaArbitration:CommentsontheNineDashLineandHistoricRights(July2016)(paperpreparedfor
thePublicInternationalLawColloquiumonMaritimeDisputesSettlementsponsoredbytheChineseSocietyof
InternationalLaw,HongKong).
[30](/print/5022#_ftnref30)AwardonJurisdiction,supranote2,152Award,supranote2,171seeUNCLOS,
supranote2,art.298(1)(a)(i).
[31](/print/5022#_ftnref31)ChinaDeclaration,supranote14.
[32](/print/5022#_ftnref32)Award,supranote2,171,180.
[33](/print/5022#_ftnref33)Seeid.17287,200,20714.
[34](/print/5022#_ftnref34)Id.214,232.
[35](/print/5022#_ftnref35)ConventionontheTerritorialSeaandContiguousZone,Apr.29,1958,516U.N.T.S.205.
[36](/print/5022#_ftnref36)Award,supranote2,221.
[37](/print/5022#_ftnref37)Id.226.
[38](/print/5022#_ftnref38)Id.229.
[39](/print/5022#_ftnref39)Id.261.
[40](/print/5022#_ftnref40)SeeCourtingNewPresident,ChinaSlowsIslandBuildingoffPhilippineCoast,Sept.25,
2016,N.Y.Times,atA8.
[41](/print/5022#_ftnref41)SeeAward,supranote2,449.

SourceURL:https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/20/issue/17/southchinaseaarbitration
Links
[1]http://www.pcacpa.org
[2]http://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201
60%29
[3]https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.22/Order/C22_Ord_22_11_2013_orig_Eng.pdf