You are on page 1of 3

RP v China

Case Digest
FACTS:
The Republic of the Philippines(Philippines) instituted an arbitration
case against the Peoples Republic of China(China) under the 1982
United Nations Convention on 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. WON the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
2. Whether China have claims under historical rights and the ninedash-line
3. What is the status of features in the South China Sea
4. WON the activities of China in the South China Sea is lawful.
5. WON the actions of China since the commencement of arbitration
have aggravated and extended the dispute.
6. What is Chinas future conduct?
RULING:
1. Article 288 of the Conventions states 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, Chinas 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 Chinas
maritime
entitlements under the Convention. The Tribunal concludes that the Convention superseded any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:
Article 121
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 own 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 couldwithout
delimiting a
boundarydeclare 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 has aggravated the Parties dispute concerning their respective
rights and
entitlements in the area of Mischief Reef by building a large artificial island on a low-tide
elevation located in the exclusive economic 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.
(c) China has extended the Parties dispute concerning the protection and
preservation of the
marine environment by commencing large-scale island-building and construction works
at Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef,
and Subi Reef.
(d) China has aggravated the Parties dispute concerning the status of
maritime features in the
Spratly Islands and their capacity to generate entitlements to maritime zones by
permanently destroying evidence of the natural condition of Mischief Reef, Cuarteron

Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, and Subi Reef.

6.The Tribunal considers it beyond dispute that both Parties are obliged to comply with the
Convention, including its provisions regarding the resolution of disputes, and to respect the
rights and freedoms of other States under the Convention. Neither Party contests this, and the
Tribunal is therefore not persuaded that it is necessary or appropriate for it to make any
further
declaration.

You might also like