PCA Case Nº2013-19, “In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration” Between the Republic

of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China

Summary of Key Claims and Holdings

The Philippines’ claims fell into four general categories. The ruling of the Tribunal on each category of
claims is summarized below:

1. The broadest claim was a challenge to China’s “nine-dash line” covering most of the South China
Sea. China has never clarified whether the line represents a claim to the islands within the line and
their adjacent waters; a boundary of national sovereignty over all the enclosed waters (including, but
not limited by, the land features inside the line); or a “historic” claim of sovereignty or some other set of
historic rights to the maritime space within the line. The Philippines sought a declaration that the
countries’ respective rights and obligations regarding the waters, seabed, and maritime features of the
South China Sea are governed by UNCLOS. As such, China’s claims based on any “historic rights” to
waters, seabed, and subsoil within the nine-dash line are contrary to UNCLOS and invalid. (See Table:
Claims 1 and 2)

Holding: 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.

Reasoning: Whatever historic rights China may have had were extinguished when UNCLOS was
adopted, to the extent those rights were incompatible with UNCLOS.

2. The Philippines sought a determination as to whether certain land features in the Spratly Islands
claimed by both China and the Philippines are properly characterized as islands, rocks, low tide
elevations (LTEs), or submerged banks. Under UNCLOS, an “island” generates both a territorial sea of
12 nautical miles and an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of up to 200 nautical miles, subject to
delimitation of a maritime boundary with any other countries’ overlapping territorial seas or EEZs. A
“rock” is entitled to a territorial sea no greater than 12 nautical miles, but not an EEZ. LTEs and
submerged banks do not generate any such entitlements. (See Table: Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7)

Holding: 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.

Reasoning: 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.

3. The Philippines sought a declaration that China violated UNCLOS by interfering with the Philippines’
rights and freedoms within its EEZs. This includes preventing Philippine fishing around Scarborough
Shoal, violating UNCLOS’s environmental protection provisions through construction and fishing
activities that have harmed the marine environment (including at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas
Shoal, and Mischief Reef), and by dangerously operating law enforcement vessels around Scarborough
Shoal. (See Table: Claims 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13)
Holding: 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.

Reasoning: This set of holdings depended on the Tribunal finding that certain areas are within the
Philippines’ EEZ and not subject to possible overlapping Chinese entitlements. It also depended on
finding that activities such as island construction are, in accordance with China’s own public statements,
not “military activities” and therefore not excluded from jurisdiction under UNCLOS. Once this was
established, the Tribunal considered Chinese activities in the relevant areas and found that China had
(a) interfered with Philippine petroleum exploration at Reed Bank, (b) purported to prohibit fishing by
Philippine vessels within the Philippine EEZ, (c) protected and failed to prevent Chinese fishermen from
fishing within the Philippine EEZ at Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal, and (d) constructed
artificial islands/installations at Mischief Reef without the Philippines’ authorization. As for Scarborough
Shoal, regardless of who has sovereignty, both Philippine and Chinese fishermen have “traditional
fishing rights” at the Shoal that were not extinguished by UNCLOS, and China violated the Philippines’
rights by entirely preventing Filipino fishermen from fishing near Scarborough Shoal after May 2012. In
addition, Chinese artificial island construction has caused “severe harm to the coral reef environment”
and China has failed to stop its nationals from engaging in “harmful” and “destructive” harvesting and
fishing of endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams in violation of UNCLOS. Finally, Chinese law
enforcement vessels violated maritime safety obligations by creating a serious risk of collision on two
occasions in April and May 2012 during the Scarborough Shoal standoff.

4. The Philippines sought a declaration that China’s recent actions, specifically its land reclamation and
construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands after the arbitration was commenced, violated the
obligations UNCLOS places on states to refrain from conduct that “aggravates and extends” a dispute
while dispute resolution proceedings are pending. (See Table: Claim 14)

Holding: China has aggravated and extended the disputes through its dredging, artificial island-
building, and construction activities.

Reasoning: 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.
Table of Philippine Claims and Tribunal Rulings*

Submission Jurisdictional
Philippines’ Claim Merits Ruling
Number Ruling
Yes: UNCLOS
(Deferred to
comprehensively
China’s maritime entitlements in merits stage)
allocates rights to
1 South China Sea may not exceed
maritime areas
those established by UNCLOS Jurisdiction
granted
Philippines win
Yes: There is no
legal basis for China
to claim historic rights
(Deferred to to waters in the
China’s “nine-dash line” claim is merits stage) South China Sea (so,
2 invalid to the extent it exceeds the to the extent that is
limits established by UNCLOS Jurisdiction what the nine-dash
granted line means, it is
invalid)

Philippines win
Yes: Scarborough
Shoal is a rock that
Scarborough Shoal generates no Jurisdiction
3 generates no EEZ
EEZ or continental shelf granted
Philippines win
Yes: Mischief Reef,
Mischief Reef, Second Thomas
Second Thomas
Shoal, and Subi Reef are all LTEs
Jurisdiction Shoal, and Subi Reef
4 that do not generate territorial seas
granted are LTEs
or EEZs, and are not subject to
appropriation
Philippines win
Yes: Mischief Reef
and Second Thomas
(Deferred to
Shoal are part of the
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas merits stage)
EEZ and continental
5 Shoal are part of the Philippines’
shelf of the
EEZ and continental shelf Jurisdiction
Philippines
granted
Philippines win
No: Both Gaven and
McKennan Reef are
Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef above water at high
(including Hughes Reef) are LTEs tide; they are rocks
that generate no maritime Jurisdiction that generate
6
entitlements, but may be used to granted territorial seas but no
determine baselines to measure EEZ or continental
territorial sea shelf

Philippines loss
 Yes: Johnson Reef,
Cuarterton Reef, and
Johnson Reef, Cuarterton Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are
Fiery Cross Reef generate no Jurisdiction rocks that generate
7
entitlements to EEZ or continental granted no EEZ or continental
shelf shelf

Philippines win
Yes: China has
interfered with
China has interfered with the (Deferred to Philippine sovereign
Philippines’ exercise of sovereign merits stage) rights to fishing and
8 rights over living and non-living hydrocarbon
resources within its EEZ and Jurisdiction exploration within its
continental shelf granted EEZ

Philippines win
Yes: China failed to
(Reserved to prevent Chinese
China has failed to prevent its
merits stage) fishermen from
nationals and vessels from
9 fishing within the
exploiting the living resources in the
Jurisdiction Philippine EEZ
Philippines’ EEZ
granted
Philippines win
Yes: China violated
the Philippines’
China has prevented Philippine
“traditional fishing
fishermen from pursuing their Jurisdiction
10 rights” at
livelihoods through traditional fishing granted
Scarborough Shoal
activities around Scarborough Shoal
Philippines win
Yes: China engaged
in environmentally
harmful
China has violated UNCLOS’s fishing/harvesting
environmental protection obligations Jurisdiction practices at
11
at Scarborough Shoal and Second granted Scarborough Shoal
Thomas Shoal and Second Thomas
Shoal

Philippines win
Yes: Environmental
protection provisions
China’s occupation and construction were violated at
(Deferred to
on Mischief Reef violate UNCLOS Mischief Reef;
merits stage)
provisions on artificial islands and artificial island
12
environmental protection, and are construction violated
Jurisdiction
unlawful acts of attempted Philippine sovereign
granted
appropriation rights within its EEZ;
the “appropriation”
claim is moot
 because Mischief
Reef is an LTE not
capable of
appropriation

Philippines win
Yes: China violated
China has violated UNCLOS by
UNCLOS and other
dangerously operating law
Jurisdiction treaty provisions on
13 enforcement vessels creating
granted maritime safety
serious risk of collision near
Scarborough Shoal
Philippines win
Yes: Although there
is no jurisdiction over
disputes involving
military activities
China has unlawfully aggravated
such as the Second
and extended the dispute by (Deferred to
Thomas Shoal
interfering with the Philippines’ rights merits stage)
standoff, China has
of navigation near Scarborough
aggravated/extended
14 Shoal, preventing the rotation and Jurisdiction
the disputes through
resupply of Philippine personnel granted in
recent large-scale
stationed at Second Thomas Shoal, part, denied in
land reclamation and
and endangering the health of the part
artificial island
personnel there
construction in the
Philippine EEZ

Philippines win
Qualified yes: This
Going forward China shall respect (Deferred to claim simply asks
the rights and freedoms of the merits stage) China to do what it is
15 Philippines under UNCLOS and required to do under
comply with its duties under Jurisdiction UNCLOS; therefore,
UNCLOS granted no further statement
is necessary