Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    RP v. CHINA

    Uploaded by

    DY
    The Republic of the Philippines filed an arbitration case against China under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea regarding maritime disputes in the South China Sea. The issues in the case included whether the tribunal had jurisdiction, the status of maritime claims and features, and the lawfulness of China's actions. The tribunal ruled that it did have jurisdiction, that China's claims to historic rights beyond UNCLOS limits were invalid, that none of the features were capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, and that China's law enforcement actions had violated UNCLOS and international law. It also found that China had aggravated the dispute through its construction and environmental damage at Mischief Reef.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    RP v. CHINA

    Uploaded by

    DY
    11 views3 pages
    The Republic of the Philippines filed an arbitration case against China under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea regarding maritime disputes in the South China Sea. The issues in the case included whether the tribunal had jurisdiction, the status of maritime claims and features, and the lawfulness of China's actions. The tribunal ruled that it did have jurisdiction, that China's claims to historic rights beyond UNCLOS limits were invalid, that none of the features were capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, and that China's law enforcement actions had violated UNCLOS and international law. It also found that China had aggravated the dispute through its construction and environmental damage at Mischief Reef.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Republic of the Philippines filed an arbitration case against China under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea regarding maritime disputes in the South China Sea. The issues in the case included whether the tribunal had jurisdiction, the status of maritime claims and features, and the lawfulness of China's actions. The tribunal ruled that it did have jurisdiction, that China's claims to historic rights beyond UNCLOS limits were invalid, that none of the features were capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, and that China's law enforcement actions had violated UNCLOS and international law. It also found that China had aggravated the dispute through its construction and environmental damage at Mischief Reef.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    11 views3 pages

    RP v. CHINA

    Uploaded by

    DY
    The Republic of the Philippines filed an arbitration case against China under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea regarding maritime disputes in the South China Sea. The issues in the case included whether the tribunal had jurisdiction, the status of maritime claims and features, and the lawfulness of China's actions. The tribunal ruled that it did have jurisdiction, that China's claims to historic rights beyond UNCLOS limits were invalid, that none of the features were capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, and that China's law enforcement actions had violated UNCLOS and international law. It also found that China had aggravated the dispute through its construction and environmental damage at Mischief Reef.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

    CHINA

    FACTS OF THE CASE


    The Republic of the Philippines instituted an arbitration case against
    the People’s Republic of China under the 1982 United Nations Convention
    of the Law of the Sea (Convention or UNCLOS) since both parties have
    ratified the Convention. However, China have consistently stated its view on
    the lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the matter.

    The arbitration concerns disputed between the parties regarding the legal
    basis of maritime rights and entitlements in the South China Sea, the status
    of certain geographic features in the South China Sea, and the lawfulness of
    certain actions taken by China in the South China Sea.

    ISSUES:
    1. Whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
    2. Whether China have claims under historical rights and the “nine
    dash-line”
    3. What is the status of features in the South China Sea?
    4. Whether or not the activities of China in the South China is lawful.
    5. Whether or not the actions of China since the commencement of
    arbitration have aggravated and extended the dispute.
    6. What is China’s future conduct?

    COURT RULING
    1. Article 288 of the Conventions stated that “in the event of a dispute as
    to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be
    settled by decision of that court or tribunal.”
    2. With respect to Submission No. 1 for the reasons set out above, the
    Tribunal concludes that as between the Philippines and China, the
    Convention defines the scope of maritime entitlements in the South
    China Sea, which may not extend beyond the limits imposed therein.
    The Tribunal concludes that as between the Philippines and China,
    China’s claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or
    jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea
    encompassed by the relevant part of the “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 under the Convention. The Tribunal concludes that the

    1|Page
    Convention superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or
    jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein.
    3. Features that are above water at high tide generate an entitlement to at
    least a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, whereas features that are
    submerged at high tide do not. The Tribunal noted that the reefs have
    been heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled
    that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and
    relied on historical materials in evaluating the features.

    Article 121 establishes a regime of islands as follows:


    Regime of Islands
    1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,
    which is above water at high tide.
    2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
    contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental
    shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions
    of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
    3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of
    their won shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental
    shelf. The tribunal found that although there were evidence of
    transient habitation on the features, there was no showing of
    permanent habitation that the features could support a stable
    community therefore they are considered rocks. Thus, having
    found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of
    generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it
    could without delimiting a boundary, declare that certain sea areas
    are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines because
    those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of
    China.
    4. The Tribunal finds that China has, by virtue of the conduct of
    Chinese law enforcement vessels in the vicinity of Scarborough
    Shoal, created serious risk of collision and danger to Philippine
    vessels and personnel. The Tribunal finds China to have violated
    Rules 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the COLREGS and as a consequence
    to be in breach of Article 94 of the Convention.
    5. Yes, it has.
    (a) China aggravated the parties dispute concerning their respective
    rights and entitlements in the area of Mischief Reef by building
    zone of the Philippines.
    (b) China has aggravated the parties dispute concerning the
    protection and preservation of the marine environment at
    Mischief Reef by inflicting permanent, irreparable harm to the
    coral reef habitat of that feature.

    2|Page
    3|Page

    You might also like