Philippines v China: International Court Ruling On Jurisdiction In The South China Sea

An international Tribunal administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague has issued a strongly worded arbitration in a dispute brought by the Philippines against the People’s Republic of China in regards to maritime entitlements in the Spratly Islands region of the South China Sea.  The dispute has been highly controversial, with China repeatedly refusing to take part in the arbitration and vowing not to accept the decision.  Countries including Australia and the USA have called on both parties to adhere to the decision and respect international law. 

Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop issued a statement that said:

The Dispute

The dispute was filed by the Philippines seeking rulings in respect of four matters:

• The source of the Parties’ rights and obligations in the South China Sea and the effect of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”) on China’s claim of ‘historic rights’ within the area said to be bounded by its ‘nine-dash line’;
• Whether certain maritime features claimed by both China and the Philippines should be classified as islands, rocks, low-tide elevations or submerged banks under UNCLOS;
• Whether the exercise of the Philippines’ sovereign rights and freedoms under the Convention had been interfered with by actions taken by China; and
• Whether China had unlawfully aggravated the dispute by undertaking large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands.

The Arbitration

The 497 page ruling issued by the Tribunal was described as ‘surprisingly sweeping’ by experts, according to ABC News.  According to a summary issued in a press release, the findings included:

• A conclusion that “to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention.”
• That there was evidence that Chinese navigators and fishermen had made use of the islands, but no evidence that China had exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources, meaning there was no legal basis for China’s claim of historic rights
• That none of the features claimed by China were capable of generating an exclusive economic zone (“EEZ”), and in fact the Spratly Islands themselves as a collective unit were also incapable of generating an EEZ
•  China had violated the Philippines sovereign rights in its EEZ by interfering with fishing and petroleum exploration and constructing artificial islands.
• China had caused severe harm to the greater marine environment by carrying out land reclamation and the construction of artificial islands

China’s Objection

China had always refused to take part in the proceedings, on the basis that the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to oversee the dispute.  ABC News reported:

Taiwan also objected to the ruling, as they maintain the largest of the Spratly Islands, Itu Aba, which they occupy, should be classified as an island and capable of generating territorial rights.

Vietnam and Japan have welcomed the ruling and stated they accept its legality.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Press Release: The South China Sea Arbitration - The Republic of the Philippines v The People's Republic of China (Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, 12/07/2016)

China has no legal basis to claim historic rights in South China Sea, international court finds (ABC News, 13/07/2016)

South China Sea dispute: Hague Tribunal finds China has no 'historic title' (David Wroe, The Sydney Morning Herald, 12/07/2016)