DAMAGE TO ENVIRONMENT

ARGUMENTS OF CHINA
Environment
• China’s construction projects have gone through
years of scientific assessments and rigorous
tests, and are subject to strict standards and
requirements of environmental protection.
• Such projects will not damage the ecological
environment of the South China Sea.
Protection Measures
• Minimizing the extent of the reclamation and dredging areas;
• Setting trash collecting screens;
• Timing construction reasonably, trying to avoid spawn periods
of red snapper, tuna, and bonito.
• Monitoring the change of grain size of sand sediments
regularly to maintain the water quality of coral reef areas;
• Reducing construction intensity during the peak of growth of
Nansha and Xisha coral reefs
• Monitoring the growth and health of coral reefs in construction
areas and indicators such as species in coral reef areas;
• Centrally collecting the waste water and solid waste produced
from life and construction to be sent for treatment at land
facilities of harbours;
• Using newer vessels to ensure no oil spill happens; listening to
weather and marine condition forecasts regularly.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES
Damage to the Environment
• While the dispute was ongoing, china had
reclamation activities which irreversibly
damaged the marine environment in question

• China violated its obligation to protect and

preserve the marine environment
Before and After reclamation
projects by China
• In its operation and
construction of such reef,
China causes heavy and
sustainable damage to it.

• Extensive land reclamation of

china towards fragile marine
environment
RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL RE:
DAMAGE TO ENVIRONMENT
• Article 192 of the Convention provides that “States have the
obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.”

• Article 194 concerns “pollution of the marine environment,” a

term which is defined in Article 1 of the Convention to mean
“the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances .
. . into the marine environment . . . which results or is likely to
result in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources
and marine life . . . [and] hindrance to . . . legitimate uses of
the sea .
• China has, through its toleration and protection of, and failure to
prevent Chinese fishing vessels engaging in harmful harvesting
activities of endangered species at Scarborough Shoal, Second
Thomas Shoal and other features in the Spratly Islands, breached
Articles 192 and 194(5) of the Convention.]
• China has, through its island-building activities at Cuarteron Reef,
Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef,
Subi Reef and Mischief Reef, breached Articles 192, 194(1),
194(5), 197, 123, and 206 of the Convention
RE: THE NINE-DASH LINE
• UNCLOS “comprehensively” governs the parties’
respective rights to maritime areas in the South
China Sea. Therefore, to the extent China’s nine-
dash line is a claim of “historic rights” to the
waters of the South China Sea, it is invalid.
• Whatever historic rights China may have had
were extinguished when UNCLOS was adopted,
to the extent those rights were incompatible
with UNCLOS.
RE: THE ISSUE ON ROCKS VS
ISLANDS AND THE EEZ
• None of the features in the Spratly Islands generates an EEZ,
nor can the Spratly Islands generate an EEZ collectively as a
unit. As such, the Tribunal declared certain areas are within
the Philippines’ EEZ and not overlapped by any possible
Chinese entitlement
• The baseline of analysis is what the features can sustain in
their “natural condition” (i.e., not after construction of
artificial islands, installation of desalination plants, etc.). Based
on historical evidence, none of the features in the Spratly
Islands can sustain either a stable community of people or
economic activity that is not dependent on outside resources
or purely extractive in nature. The current presence of
personnel on the features is dependent on outside support
and does not reflect the capacity of the features in their
natural condition.
RE: CHINA’S ALLEGED
INTERFERENCE IN PH’S
SOVEREIGN RIGHTS IN THE EEZ
AND CONTINTENTAL SHELF
• China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its EEZ. It did so
by interfering with Philippine fishing and hydrocarbon exploration;
constructing artificial islands; and failing to prevent Chinese
fishermen from fishing in the Philippines’ EEZ. China also interfered
with Philippine fishermen’s traditional fishing rights near
Scarborough Shoal (without prejudice to the question of
sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal). China’s construction of
artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands, as well as
illegal fishing and harvesting by Chinese nationals, violate UNCLOS
obligations to protect the marine environment. Finally, Chinese law
enforcement vessels unlawfully created a serious risk of collision by
physically obstructing Philippine vessels at Scarborough Shoal in
2012.
RE: DAMAGE TO THE
ENVIRONMENT
• China has aggravated and extended the disputes through its
dredging, artificial island-building, and construction activities.
• While these proceedings were pending, China has built a large
island on Mischief Reed, an LTE within the Philippines’ EEZ;
caused irreparable harm to the marine ecosystem; and
permanently destroyed evidence of the natural condition of
the features at issue
PHILIPPINES’ CLAIM MERITS RULING
China’s maritime YES: UNCLOS comprehensively allocated rights to maritime
entitlements in South areas
China Sea may not
exceed those PHILIPPINES WINS
established by
UNCLOS

China’s “nine-dash YES: There is no legal basis for China to claim historic rights
line” claim is invalid to waters in the South China Sea (So, to the extent that is
to the extent it what the nine-dash line means, it is invalid”
exceeds the limits
established by PHILIPPINES WINS
UNCLOS
 PHILIPPINES’ CLAIM MERITS RULING

Scarborough Shoal generates no EEZ Yes: Scarborough Shoal is a rock that

or continental shelf generates no EEZ

PHILIPPINES WINS

Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, Yes: Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal,
and Subi Reef are all LTEs that do not and Subi Reef are LTEs
generate territorial seas or EEZs, and
are not subject to appropriation PHILIPPINES WINS
 PHILIPPINES’ CLAIM MERITS RULING
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are part Yes: Mischief Reef and
of the Philippines’ EEZ and continental shelf Second Thomas Shoal are
part of the EEZ and
continental shelf of the
Philippines

PHILIPPINES WINS
Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including No: Both Gaven and
Hughes Reef) are LTEs that generate no maritime McKennan Reef are above
entitlements, but may be used to determine water at high tide; they are
baselines to measure territorial sea rocks that generate territorial
seas but no EEZ or
continental shelf

PHILIPPINES LOSE
 PHILIPPINES’ MERITS RULING
CLAIM
Johnson Reef, Yes: Johnson Reef, Cuarterton Reef, and Fiery Cross
Cuarterton Reef, Reef are rocks that generate no EEZ or continental
and Fiery Cross shelf
Reef generate no
entitlements to EEZ PHILIPPINES WINS
or continental shelf

China has Yes: China has interfered with Philippine sovereign

interfered with the rights to fishing and hydrocarbon exploration within its
Philippines’ EEZ
exercise of
sovereign rights PHILIPPINES WINS
over living and non-
living resources
within its EEZ and
continental shelf
 PHILIPPINES’ MERITS RULING
CLAIM
China has failed to Yes: China failed to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing
prevent its within the Philippine EEZ
nationals and
vessels from PHILIPPINES WINS
exploiting the
living resources in
the Philippines’
EEZ

China has Yes: China violated the Philippines’ “traditional fishing

prevented rights” at Scarborough Shoal
Philippine
fishermen from
pursuing their PHILIPPINES WINS
livelihoods through
traditional fishing
activities around
Scarborough Shoal
 PHILIPPINES’ CLAIM MERITS RULING

China has violated Yes: China engaged in environmentally harmful

UNCLOS’s fishing/harvesting practices at Scarborough Shoal and
environmental Second Thomas Shoal
protection obligations
at Scarborough Shoal PHILIPPINES WINS
and Second Thomas
Shoal

China’s occupation Yes: Environmental protection provisions were violated at

and construction on Mischief Reef; artificial island construction violated
Mischief Reef violate Philippine sovereign rights within its EEZ; the
UNCLOS provisions on “appropriation” claim is moot because Mischief Reef is an
artificial islands and LTE not capable of appropriation
environmental
protection, and are PHILIPPINES WINS
unlawful acts of
attempted
appropriation
 PHILIPPINES’ CLAIM MERITS RULING
China has violated Yes: China violated UNCLOS and other treaty provisions on
UNCLOS by dangerously maritime safety
operating law
enforcement vessels PHILIPPINES WINS
creating serious risk of
collision near
Scarborough Shoal

China has unlawfully Yes: Although there is no jurisdiction over disputes involving
aggravated and military activities such as the Second Thomas Shoal standoff,
extended the dispute by China has aggravated/extended the disputes through recent
interfering with the large-scale land reclamation and artificial island construction in
Philippines’ rights of the Philippine EEZ
navigation near
Scarborough Shoal, PHILIPPINES WINS
preventing the rotation
and resupply of
Philippine personnel
stationed at Second
Thomas Shoal, and
endangering the health
of the personnel there
 PHILIPPINES’ MERITS RULING
CLAIM

Going forward Qualified yes: This claim simply asks China to

China shall respect do what it is required to do under UNCLOS;
the rights and therefore, no further statement is necessary
freedoms of the
Philippines under
UNCLOS and
comply with its
duties under
UNCLOS
THE END