Philippine v. China, PCA Case Nº 2013-19

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION

The position of the Republic of the Philippines

  1. Sovereignty and Jurisdiction: The Philippines asserts its sovereignty and jurisdiction over the waters surrounding the relevant geological features in the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) in the South China Sea. It argues that under the principle of “la terre domine la mer” (the land dominates the sea) and UNCLOS, it exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction over these waters.
    • UNCLOS and Territorial Claims: The Philippines claims that the waters adjacent to the relevant geological features in the KIG, as well as the seabed and subsoil in those areas, fall within its sovereign rights or jurisdiction as defined by UNCLOS. It refers to specific articles of UNCLOS (Articles 3, 4, 55, 57, and 76) to support its claim. The adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) extinguished any historic rights China may have had in the South China Sea.
    • The Convention does not provide exceptions for historic rights that derogate from the rights of other coastal states or the rights and freedoms of all states.
  2. Rejection of China’s Nine-Dash Line:
    • The Philippines objects to China’s claim of sovereignty over the South China Sea based on the “nine-dash line” depicted on a Chinese mapIt argues that China’s claim outside the relevant geological features in the KIG and their adjacent waters has no basis under international law, specifically UNCLOS.
  3. China’s Historical and Legal Claims:
    • The Philippines rejects China’s assertion of “abundant historical and legal evidence” supporting its sovereignty and related rights in the South China Sea.It argues that China’s claim to the Nansha Islands (Spratly Islands) and their adjacent waters is not supported by historical or legal evidence.The principles governing the seas were freedom of the seas and control by the adjacent coastal state, which prohibited appropriation by other states.China’s claim is inconsistent with these principles.Chinese historic maps and records indicate that China’s territory extended no further south than Hainan, casting doubt on its claim to the South China Sea.China had restrictions on maritime trade during certain periods, explaining its lack of protest to European navigation and the establishment of colonies in Southeast Asia.Archival records show no official Chinese activities in the South China Sea prior to the 20th century, raising questions about China’s historic rights in the area.Many features in the South China Sea lacked Chinese names, suggesting limited Chinese involvement or connection to the area.Historical documents from France’s archives indicate that France did not recognize China’s claims in the Spratly Islands or the waters of the South China Sea.
    • The absence of Chinese historic rights in the South China Sea is also evident in documents obtained from various sources, including the Taiwan Authority of China.
  4. Extinguishment of Rights and Historic Rights:
    • The Philippines argues that any rights that China may have had in the maritime areas of the South China Sea, beyond those provided for in UNCLOS, were extinguished by China’s accession to the Convention.


The position of the People’s Republic of China

  1. Sovereignty and Historical Claims. China claims sovereignty over the majority of the South China Sea, as delineated by its nine-dash line. China argues that it has historical and legal rights to the islands, reefs, and waters, as well as the seabed and subsoil. This claim is based on historical and legal evidence, according to China. It cites historical records and ancient maps as evidence of its long-standing presence and control over the region.
  2. China stated its indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, along with its sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters, seabed, and subsoil.
  3. China emphasized that its claims were grounded in international law, including UNCLOS, and had been consistently upheld by successive Chinese governments and widely known internationally.
  4. Rejection of Arbitral Ruling. China rejects the ruling of the 2016 arbitration case brought by the Philippines at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. China argues that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the ruling is null and void. China maintains that disputes concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation should be resolved through direct negotiations with the parties involved, rather than through international arbitration.
  5. Non-Involvement of Third Parties. China prefers to handle the South China Sea disputes bilaterally with the countries directly concerned, primarily through negotiation and dialogue. China opposes the involvement of external parties, such as the United States or other non-claimant countries, in the disputes. China sees the South China Sea issue as a regional matter that should be resolved among the countries in the region without external interference.
  6. Peaceful Resolution and Code of Conduct.  China emphasizes the importance of maintaining peace, stability, and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. It calls for the full implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), signed between China and ASEAN member states in 2002. China also supports the negotiation and eventual conclusion of a Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea, which is currently being discussed between China and ASEAN countries.
  7. Development and Cooperation. China promotes cooperation among countries in the region and highlights the potential for joint development of resources in the South China Sea. China has engaged in infrastructure development projects, including the construction of artificial islands, ports, and military facilities. It argues that these activities serve both civilian and defense purposes and contribute to the overall development and prosperity of the region.

China’s claim is represented by the “nine-dash line,” which first appeared on an official Chinese map in 1948. The line initially had 11 dashes but was later modified to a nine-dash line in 1953. Since then, the nine-dash line has consistently appeared in official Chinese cartography.

In 2009, China sent two Notes Verbales to the UN Secretary-General, asserting its position of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the South China Sea islands and the adjacent waters. China attached a map depicting the nine-dash line to support its claim.

The nine-dash line

  1. The “nine-dash line” is a demarcation line that China uses to assert its territorial claims in the South China Sea. It consists of nine dashes or line segments encircling a significant portion of the South China Sea, including islands, reefs, and waters claimed by neighboring countries.
  2. The origin of the nine-dash line can be traced back to a map published by the Republic of China (ROC) in 1947, which initially had eleven dashes. In 1953, the line was reduced to nine dashes after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The dashes are not equally spaced and appear in a roughly parallel manner.
  3. China interprets the nine-dash line as representing its historical and legal claims to sovereignty and jurisdiction over the islands, reefs, and waters within the line. However, the specific meaning and extent of the line have not been clearly defined by China, leading to uncertainty and disputes among neighboring countries.The nine-dash line has been a major point of contention due to conflicting territorial claims in the South China Sea. Countries such as Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan have overlapping claims with China in the region, and they contest China’s assertion of sovereignty based on their own historical, geographical, and legal arguments. The nine-dash line has raised international concerns and has been challenged by countries opposing China’s expansive claims. It is inconsistent with the principles and provisions of UNCLOS, which establishes maritime rights and boundaries. In 2016, the PCA ruled that China’s nine-dash line claim has no legal basis under UNCLOS.
  4. Despite international opposition and legal challenges, China continues to assert its claims in the South China Sea based on the nine-dash line, asserting historical rights and sovereignty over the disputed areas.

The legal classification and maritime entitlements of various features in the South China Sea

  1. Scarborough Shoal: It contains naturally formed areas of land above water at high tide. However, these high-tide features are classified as rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own. Consequently, Scarborough Shoal has no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
  2. Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef: These features also have naturally formed areas of land above water at high tide. However, they are classified as rocks and do not generate exclusive economic zones or continental shelves.
  3. Gaven Reef (North) and McKennan Reef: Contrary to the Philippines’ claim, these features are considered naturally formed areas of land surrounded by water above water at high tide. Nevertheless, they are classified as rocks and do not generate exclusive economic zones or continental shelves.
  4. Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal: Both features are classified as low-tide elevations, which do not generate maritime zones. The high-tide features in the Spratly Islands, including Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal, are incapable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of their own. Therefore, they are legally rocks and do not generate entitlements to exclusive economic zones or continental shelves. China has no possible entitlement to any maritime zone in the area of Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal.

Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are located within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines’ coast on the island of Palawan. These features are not overlapped with any maritime entitlements claimed by China. Consequently, Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are considered part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines.

The implications of the classification of the land formations are as follows:

  • Continental Shelf: The classification also affects the establishment of a continental shelf. If a land formation is classified as a rock, it does not generate a continental shelf. Consequently, the coastal state cannot claim rights to exploit the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines.
  • Territorial Claims: The classification can have implications for territorial claims between countries. If a land formation is classified as part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of a specific country, it strengthens that country’s territorial claim over the land formation and the surrounding waters.
  • Maritime Jurisdiction: The classification determines the extent of maritime jurisdiction that a coastal state can exercise over the surrounding waters. Rocks, which cannot generate an EEZ or continental shelf, have limited maritime jurisdiction, while naturally formed areas of land can have a broader maritime jurisdiction if they meet the criteria specified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
  • Resource Exploration and Exploitation: The classification affects the rights of countries to explore and exploit natural resources, such as fisheries, oil, gas, and minerals, in the waters and seabed surrounding the land formations. Rocks, which do not generate an EEZ or continental shelf, have limited rights to exploit these resources.