The document summarizes the key issues resolved by the UNCLOS tribunal in its ruling on the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines. The tribunal ruled that:
1) China's nine-dashed line claim is invalid under UNCLOS. Maritime zones must be claimed from land features, not lines.
2) None of the Spratly features are capable of generating 200nm EEZs. They are entitled to 12nm territorial seas only.
3) Scarborough Shoal is a high-tide feature entitled to a 12nm territorial sea but not a 200nm EEZ.
4) China violated environmental obligations by land reclamation and failed fisheries enforcement.
5
Nine-dashed Line Map Submitted by China to United Nations on 7 May 2009 China did not explain the legal basis for the dashes. The dashes had no fixed coordinates. “China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof.” - China’s Note Verbale of 7 May 2009 The Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia promptly protested China’s claim under this dashed lines map. The Philippines belatedly protested on 11 April 2011.
THE PRIMER is an initiative of independent researchers. The facts and analyses presented herein represent the authors’ own appreciation of published material and primary sources that were accessible to them during the course of the research.
They do not represent any position of the government of the Republic of the Philippines, unless stated otherwise, nor of the publisher.
The purpose of this Primer is to make available in a single updated volume a simplified and objective rendering of the historical background, current conditions, pertinent issues and policy questions regarding the territorial and maritime disputes in the West Philippine Sea.
It is intended to assist students, researchers, media practitioners, non-specialist members of the civil service, as well as the general public, in deepening their understanding of the many different issues of the West Philippine Sea disputes.
The questions and answers are framed from a Filipino perspective that focuses on information that the authors
considered to be most important and of interest to citizens of this country, rather than information that may be highlighted by various foreign authors, organizations or governments. The contents are not intended as advocacy of any particular position or policy recommendation.
The authors would like to thank Lucio B. Pitlo III for his invaluable research assistance in the preparation of this Primer. For inquiries and comments, please contact the Asian Center, University of the Philippines Diliman.
Aileen S.P. Baviera, PhD
Jay Batongbacal, JSD
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
The South China Sea West Philippine Sea DisputeBerean Guide
Our Stake in the West Philippine Sea
A Talk By Justice Antonio Carpio
Hosted by Pimentel Institute for Leadership and Governance
April 25,2016 Club Filipino
Nine-dashed Line Map Submitted by China to United Nations on 7 May 2009 China did not explain the legal basis for the dashes. The dashes had no fixed coordinates. “China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof.” - China’s Note Verbale of 7 May 2009 The Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia promptly protested China’s claim under this dashed lines map. The Philippines belatedly protested on 11 April 2011.
THE PRIMER is an initiative of independent researchers. The facts and analyses presented herein represent the authors’ own appreciation of published material and primary sources that were accessible to them during the course of the research.
They do not represent any position of the government of the Republic of the Philippines, unless stated otherwise, nor of the publisher.
The purpose of this Primer is to make available in a single updated volume a simplified and objective rendering of the historical background, current conditions, pertinent issues and policy questions regarding the territorial and maritime disputes in the West Philippine Sea.
It is intended to assist students, researchers, media practitioners, non-specialist members of the civil service, as well as the general public, in deepening their understanding of the many different issues of the West Philippine Sea disputes.
The questions and answers are framed from a Filipino perspective that focuses on information that the authors
considered to be most important and of interest to citizens of this country, rather than information that may be highlighted by various foreign authors, organizations or governments. The contents are not intended as advocacy of any particular position or policy recommendation.
The authors would like to thank Lucio B. Pitlo III for his invaluable research assistance in the preparation of this Primer. For inquiries and comments, please contact the Asian Center, University of the Philippines Diliman.
Aileen S.P. Baviera, PhD
Jay Batongbacal, JSD
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
The South China Sea West Philippine Sea DisputeBerean Guide
Our Stake in the West Philippine Sea
A Talk By Justice Antonio Carpio
Hosted by Pimentel Institute for Leadership and Governance
April 25,2016 Club Filipino
Philippine Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio's Lecture to the 2017 Geological Convention on the South China Sea Maritime Dispute
Presentation on Marine Insurance by law students from the Polytechnic University of the Philippines-College of Law, for Insurance Law under Commissioner Wilfredo Reyes.
Benham rise – the rising star of philippine resources Fernando Penarroyo
The inclusion of the previously unexplored Benham Rise into Philippine waters has stirred public interest as to the resources potential of this jurisdictional region.
Presentation by Antonio T. Carpio, Chair of the Second Division and Chair of the Senate Electoral Tribunal of the Philippines, at the Elcano Royal Institute on 11 May 2015.
- o -
Presentación de Antonio T. Carpio, magistrado de Filipinas, en una reunión realizada el 11 de mayo de 2015 en la sede del Real Instituto Elcano.
Philippine Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio's Lecture to the 2017 Geological Convention on the South China Sea Maritime Dispute
Presentation on Marine Insurance by law students from the Polytechnic University of the Philippines-College of Law, for Insurance Law under Commissioner Wilfredo Reyes.
Benham rise – the rising star of philippine resources Fernando Penarroyo
The inclusion of the previously unexplored Benham Rise into Philippine waters has stirred public interest as to the resources potential of this jurisdictional region.
Presentation by Antonio T. Carpio, Chair of the Second Division and Chair of the Senate Electoral Tribunal of the Philippines, at the Elcano Royal Institute on 11 May 2015.
- o -
Presentación de Antonio T. Carpio, magistrado de Filipinas, en una reunión realizada el 11 de mayo de 2015 en la sede del Real Instituto Elcano.
The South China Sea Dispute – An Update, Lecture Delivered on April 23, 2015 at a forum sponsored by the Bureau of Treasury and the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communications at the Ayuntamiento de Manila
Lecture South China Sea an Update 23 April 2015 Ayuntamiento de Manila BADGE
Download (PDF, 11.06MB)
Post navigation
← Capsule Cartographic Exhibit and Lecture Photo Gallery 23 April 2015 Ayuntamiento de Manila AFP denies China warship fired at PAF plane over Pag-asa Island →
Search IMOA
Search for:
This is Justice Antonio T. Carpio's latest presentation on the South China Sea Dispute. It has 154 slides which contains maps made by Europeans, Chinese, and Foreigners from as early as the 13thC. The maps disprove China's claims that they have historical rights over the Paracels, Spratlys, and Scarborough shoal.
China, South China Sea Dispute, Philippines, USA, Spratlys, Artificial Islands, Reclamation, History, Maps, Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Lecture, West Philippine Sea
iMarine data e-infrastructure: Data access, harmonization, analysis, and mana...iMarine283644
On the 22 July 2014, OpenChannels.org and the EBM Tools Network, two of the premier sources of information about coastal and marine planning and management tools in the United States and internationally, hosted the iMarine webinar: iMarine Data e-Infrastructure Initiative for Fisheries Management and Conservation of Marine Living Resources.
The webinar focused on the presentation of the iMarine initiative and its powerful data e-infrastructures and services, followed by a presentation of a set of use cases related to Geospatial Analysis, Ecology, Biodiversity and Life History Traits. The presentations were given by Pasquale Pagano, CNR-ISTI and iMarine Technical Director and Gianpaolo Coro, CNR-ISTI. Watch the video of the webinar here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgf30BPyBbk
Will South China Sea Ruling Affect Global Trade?Xeneta
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has issued its ruling in favor of the Philippines on the increasingly hostile Chinese – Philippine dispute on their claims to the gas-rich Scarborough Shoal/Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. The tribunal’s ruling not only benefits the Philippines, it also benefits other states bordering the South China Sea like Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. So why is that interesting for trade?
Presentation by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T Carpio during the Special Defense Symposium on the PCA Final Award in the South China Sea Arbitration Case organized by Trident Defense on 22 July 2016
Implications of Chinese Activities in the South China Sea and Benham RiseSam Rodriguez Galope
China’s Creeping Expansion in the SCS from 1946 to 2016 Before World War II, China’s southernmost defense perimeter was Hainan Island. Before the war, China did not have a single soldier or sailor stationed in any SCS island outside of Hainan Island. In 1946, right after the war, China took over the Amphitrite Group of the Paracels and Itu Aba in the Spratlys following the defeat of the Japanese, moving China’s defense perimeter southward. China (Kuomintang) vacated Itu Aba in 1950 until 1956, when Taiwan occupied Itu Aba. In 1974, China forcibly dislodged the South Vietnamese from the Crescent Group of the Paracels. In 1987, China installed a weather radar station in Fiery Cross Reef. In 1988, China forcibly evicted Vietnam from Johnson South Reef, and seized Subi Reef from the Philippines, moving further south China’s defense perimeter in the Spratlys. In 1995, China seized Mischief Reef from the Philippines, just 125 NM from Palawan and 594 NM from Hainan. In 2012, China seized Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines, just 124 NM from Luzon. In 2013, China seized Luconia Shoals from Malaysia, just 54 NM from Sarawak’s coast. In 2014, China started island-building on rocks and submerged areas in the Spratlys to construct air and naval bases.
2. China’s grand design is to control the South China Sea for economic and military purposes. China wants all the fishery, oil, gas and mineral resources within the nine-dashed line. China already takes 50% of the annual fish catch in the South China Sea as more than 80% of its coastal waters are already polluted. China has the largest fishing fleet in the world, with 220,000 sea-going vessels and 2,640 long- distance ocean-going vessels. China’s fish consumption is the highest in the world considering China’s 1.4 billion population. China is the largest net importer of petroleum in the world. China wants the lion’s share of the oil and gas in the South China Sea. The Chinese estimate that the South China Sea holds 130 billion barrels of oil, and if this is correct, the South China Sea is as rich in oil as Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates. The South China Sea is also rich in methane hydrates - said to be one of the fuels of the future. China wants to secure all these methane hydrates for itself. China also wants the South China Sea as a sanctuary for its nuclear-armed submarines – free from surveillance by U.S. submarine-hunting Poseidon airplanes or U.S. nuclear attack submarines. China wants a second-strike nuclear capability, joining the ranks of the U.S. and Russia. China’s Grand Design in the South China Sea
West Philippine Sea Disputes jezel fagtanan suciasJezel Sucias
Why did China conquers all the islands at West Philippine Sea? This presentation will help you understand from its origin the history how did they acquire such territory. this will also give you knowledge about why did the Philippine Island struggles so much in defending their territory also at the West China Sea.
On 12 July 2016, the FINAL AWARD in the South China Sea Arbitration Case brought by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China was promulgated by the Arbitral Tribunal under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
TRIDENT DEFENSE held a READING SESSION and ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION to review the disposition of the Arbitral Tribunal and share its preliminary analysis on the Final Award.
TRIDENT DEFENSE aims to inform and influence stakeholders on the critical importance and impact of the Final Award in the life of the Philippines.
THE PHOENIX ISLANDS REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI: AN ANNOTATED AND ILLUSTRATED CHRONO...Dr Ian Ellis-Jones
An historical and descriptive chronological history of the Phoenix Islands, Republic of Kiribati, with annotations and photographs (5th edn). The first to fourth editions were published sub titulo The Phoenix Islands: An Annotated Chronology.
Remarks on the 50th Anniversary of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treati...Sam Rodriguez Galope
Keynote Speech on the 50th Anniversary of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Department of Foreign Affairs 26 November 2019 Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Ret.) Acting Secretary Enrique Manalo, Undersecretary Eduardo Malaya, Atty. Igor Bailen, other officials and employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs, distinguished guests, friends, a pleasant afternoon to everyone. Thank you for inviting me here this afternoon to join you in celebrating the Golden Anniversary of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. As you know, the most important source of international law are treaties. Treaties regulate relations between and among states. Treaties constitute the law between and among treaty states. Treaties must be observed faithfully between and among treaty states as expressed in the maxim pacta sunt servanda. Harmonious relations between and among treaty states can be maintained only if states uniformly apply and interpret treaties that regulate their relations. Treaties cannot operate to regulate relations and conduct of states if treaty states have different interpretations of treaties to which they are parties. There can be no effective dispute settlement between and among treaty states without uniform and universally accepted rules of treaty interpretation.
Follow the Rule of Law, But Aspire for the Rule of Justice Ateneo Law School ...Sam Rodriguez Galope
Follow the Rule of Law, But Aspire for the Rule of Justice
Ateneo Law School Commencement Speech
Ateneo de Manila University, July 14, 2019
Justice Antonio T. Carpio
.
"Is war really the only way of enforcing the arbitral Award? The answer is, of course, a resounding no. Waging war to enforce the arbitral Award is against the rule of law, both under domestic law and international law. Under the Constitution, the Philippines has renounced war as an instrument of national policy. Our Constitution prohibits the government from going to war to enforce the arbitral Award. Under the United Nations Charter, war has been outlawed as a means of settling disputes between states.
.
"Any war of aggression can even subject the leaders of the aggressor state to prosecution for a crime against humanity, even if the aggressor state is not a member of the Rome Statute, as when the act of aggression is referred to the International Criminal Court by the Security Council. In short, it is against the rule of law to go to war to enforce the arbitral Award.
.
"Is there a way to enforce the arbitral Award using the rule of law in the absence of an enforcement mechanism under UNCLOS? This, in essence, is the question that President Rodrigo Duterte publicly asked me last June 24, 2019. Let me quote the Philippine Star news report on that day: “Xi Jinping (said) there will be trouble. So answer me, Justice,” Duterte said, referring to Carpio, “give me the formula and I’ll do it.”
.
"In short, President Duterte asked me before the entire Filipino people - show me the formula to enforce the arbitral Award without going to war with China and I will do it.
.
"My response is yes, Mr. President, there is a formula – and not only one but many ways of enforcing the arbitral Award without going to war with China, using only the rule of law. Let me mention a few of these, and I hope the President will implement them as he had promised."
.
~Justice Antonio T. Carpio
Second Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey: 4 out of 5 Pinoys repudiate govern...Sam Rodriguez Galope
The Second Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey, conducted from June 27-30, 2018, found that four out of five adult Filipinos repudiate the government’s policy of doing nothing about China’s intrusion in the West Philippine Sea.
The June 2018 survey asked, “Is [activity] RIGHT or NOT RIGHT for the Philippine government to do in resolving the conflict between the Philippines and China about the West Philippine Sea?” Five specific activities were tested.
To this, 81% said it is not right to leave China alone with its infrastructures and military presence in the claimed territories [Chart 1].
At the same time, 80% said it is right for the government to strengthen the military capability of the Philippines, especially the Navy.
Seventy-four percent said it is right for the government to bring the issue to international organizations, like the United Nations or Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), for a diplomatic and peaceful negotiation with China about the claimed territories.
Seventy-three percent said it is alright to have direct, bilateral negotiations between the Philippines and China to discuss the resolution of the issue of the claimed territories.
Sixty-eight percent said the government should ask other countries to mediate the issue of the claimed territories.
81% say it is not right to do nothing about China’s intrusion in claimed territories
80% want the military, particularly the Navy, to be strengthened
74% want to bring the issue to international organizations for diplomatic negotiations
73% say it is alright for PH and China to have direct, bilateral negotiations
68% say the government should ask other countries to mediate
Net trust in China falls to “Bad” -35
https://www.sws.org.ph/swsmain/artcldisppage/?artcsyscode=ART-20180714202446&mc_cid=ed998182eb&mc_eid=6280559e78
Remarks on 2nd Anniversary of the Arbitral Ruling on South China Sea Dispute ...Sam Rodriguez Galope
The July 12, 2016 Award of the Arbitral Tribunal was a
landmark ruling for three reasons. First, the Arbitral
Tribunal ruled that China’s so-called historic nine-dashed
line cannot serve as legal basis to claim any part of the
waters or resources of the South China Sea. China, like all
other coastal states in the South China Sea, cannot claim
maritime zones beyond what UNCLOS allows, that is, not
exceeding 350 NM from the coastline. The result is that
about 25 percent of the South China Sea are high seas, and
all around the high seas are the exclusive economic zones
of the adjacent coastal states. Of course, in the high seas
and exclusive economic zones there is freedom of
navigation and freedom of overflight as recognized under
customary international law and UNCLOS.
Ideas that Divide the Nation
Address to the 2018 Graduates on Recognition Day
National College of Public Administration & Governance
University of the Philippines, 22 June 2018
Our nation today is facing radical proposals to change its historic identity, its grant of regional autonomy, and its foreign policy. Because these proposals are radical and divisive, they require the deepest examination from all sectors of our society - from lawyers, public administrators, historians, political experts, businessmen, scientists, farmers, NGOs, and all other sectors in our society. I call these proposals Ideas that Divide the Nation.
We should be wary of new concepts imported from foreign shores and alien to our history as a people, which could Divide the Nation and even lead to the dismemberment of the Philippine state. Let me point out a few examples of these divisive ideas that have been introduced into our national discourse.
Japanese Translation: The South China Sea Dispute: Philippine Sovereign Right...Sam Rodriguez Galope
On 29 October 2011, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio delivered a speech before the Ateneo de Davao University College of Law on its 50th Founding Anniversary. Entitled e Rule of Law as the Great Equalizer, the speech signaled the beginning of his advocacy to protect the maritime entitlements of the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea as conferred by international law. In that speech, Justice Carpio declared:
This battle to defend our EEZ from China, the superpower in our region, is the 21st century equivalent of the battles that our forebears waged against Western and Eastern colonizers from the 16th to the 20th century. e best and the brightest of our forebears fought the Western and Eastern colonizers, and even sacri ced their lives, to make the Philippines free. In this modern- day battle, the best and the brightest legal warriors in our country today must stand up and fight to free the EEZ of the Philippines from foreign encroachment. In this historic battle to secure our EEZ, we must rely on the most powerful weapon invented by man in the settlement of disputes among states – a weapon that can immobilize armies, neutralize aircraft carriers, render irrelevant nuclear bombs, and level the battle eld between small nations and superpowers.
That weapon – the great equalizer – is the Rule of Law. Under the Rule of Law, right prevails over might.
This eBook is a collation of Justice Carpio’s lectures and speeches on the South China Sea dispute and the historic arbitral award rendered in favor of the Philippines. Totaling more than 140 lectures and speeches and spanning a period of more than five years, or from October 2011 to March 2017, these presentations were made in various fora, both in the Philippines and abroad. An earlier collation of his lectures and speeches was published in Antonio T. Carpio, Historical Facts, Historical Lies, and Historical Rights in the West Philippine Sea, 88 Phil. L.J. 389 (2014).
is ebook is interactive — if you click on a map or photo, or on the underlined name of the source of a photo or illustration, it will bring you to its online source.
Acceptance of Ruling is Material -- Statement of Justice Antonio T. CarpioSam Rodriguez Galope
Why China’s Acceptance of the Ruling Is Material
Statement of Justice Antonio T. Carpio
China is legally bound by the tribunal’s ruling, whether China likes it or not. That is the compulsory nature of international law. But China can decide to go rogue and refuse to accept and implement the ruling.
This is what China has done – refusing to vacate Mischief Reef which the tribunal ruled is submerged at high-tide and forms part of the Philippine EEZ. The tribunal ruled that only the Philippines can exploit or erect a structure in Mischief Reef.
In international law, where there is no world policeman to enforce a legally binding ruling, acceptance and implementation of the ruling by the losing State is obviously material. More so if the losing State is a military power, and the winning State is not.
Remarks before the 2017 U.P. Alumni Homecoming Never Give Up Honor, Soverei...Sam Rodriguez Galope
A pleasant afternoon to everyone.
On behalf of this year’s alumni awardees, I wish to thank the Board of Directors of the University of the Philippines Alumni Association headed by its President, Atty. Ramon Maronilla, for this signal award conferred on us. I am sure I speak for the all of the awardees here tonight that we are truly honored and humbled by this recognition. We will certainly treasure this award.
This year’s theme of the Alumni Homecoming is “Itanghal ang Dangal” - Show Honor. Honor is of course the first half of the U.P. Motto – “Honor and Excellence.”
The emphasis on showing honor correctly points out that honor comes before excellence, that there must be honor above all, even as there must be excellence in all that we do.
Monitoring Health for the SDGs - Global Health Statistics 2024 - WHOChristina Parmionova
The 2024 World Health Statistics edition reviews more than 50 health-related indicators from the Sustainable Development Goals and WHO’s Thirteenth General Programme of Work. It also highlights the findings from the Global health estimates 2021, notably the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy.
Presentation by Jared Jageler, David Adler, Noelia Duchovny, and Evan Herrnstadt, analysts in CBO’s Microeconomic Studies and Health Analysis Divisions, at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Summer Conference.
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
Preliminary findings _OECD field visits to ten regions in the TSI EU mining r...OECDregions
Preliminary findings from OECD field visits for the project: Enhancing EU Mining Regional Ecosystems to Support the Green Transition and Secure Mineral Raw Materials Supply.
This session provides a comprehensive overview of the latest updates to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (commonly known as the Uniform Guidance) outlined in the 2 CFR 200.
With a focus on the 2024 revisions issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), participants will gain insight into the key changes affecting federal grant recipients. The session will delve into critical regulatory updates, providing attendees with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate and comply with the evolving landscape of federal grant management.
Learning Objectives:
- Understand the rationale behind the 2024 updates to the Uniform Guidance outlined in 2 CFR 200, and their implications for federal grant recipients.
- Identify the key changes and revisions introduced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the 2024 edition of 2 CFR 200.
- Gain proficiency in applying the updated regulations to ensure compliance with federal grant requirements and avoid potential audit findings.
- Develop strategies for effectively implementing the new guidelines within the grant management processes of their respective organizations, fostering efficiency and accountability in federal grant administration.
ZGB - The Role of Generative AI in Government transformation.pdfSaeed Al Dhaheri
This keynote was presented during the the 7th edition of the UAE Hackathon 2024. It highlights the role of AI and Generative AI in addressing government transformation to achieve zero government bureaucracy
Donate to charity during this holiday seasonSERUDS INDIA
For people who have money and are philanthropic, there are infinite opportunities to gift a needy person or child a Merry Christmas. Even if you are living on a shoestring budget, you will be surprised at how much you can do.
Donate Us
https://serudsindia.org/how-to-donate-to-charity-during-this-holiday-season/
#charityforchildren, #donateforchildren, #donateclothesforchildren, #donatebooksforchildren, #donatetoysforchildren, #sponsorforchildren, #sponsorclothesforchildren, #sponsorbooksforchildren, #sponsortoysforchildren, #seruds, #kurnool
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
2024: The FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 38
Dentists' Forum: South China Sea Arbitral Award
1.
2. 1. China’s Claim to Historic Rights under the Nine-
Dashed Lines
2. Status of Geologic Features in Spratlys to Generate
200-NM EEZ and Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to
Rule on Maritime Issues in the Spratlys
3. Status of Geologic Features in Spratlys whether
Low-Tide or High-Tide Elevations
4. Status of Scarborough Shoal and Right to
Traditional Fishing
5. Harm to Marine Environment
6. Unlawful Actions of China
Six Major Issues Resolved by the
Annex VII UNCLOS Tribunal
4. • The nine-dashed lines are illegal under UNCLOS and
cannot be the basis for claiming maritime zones; maritime
zones must be claimed from land;
• China’s maritime zones, just like other coastal states,
cannot extend beyond the limits prescribed under
UNCLOS;
• All historic rights in the EEZ were extinguished upon
effectivity of UNCLOS;
• No evidence that China historically exercised exclusive
control over the waters and resources of the South China
Sea;
• The Tribunal upheld the Philippine position on this
issue.
China’s Claim to Historic Rights
Under the Nine-Dashed Lines
7. 1896 “Huang Chao Zhi Sheng Yu Di Quan Tu” or The Qing
Empire’s Complete Map of All Provinces
During the Chinese dynasties, Hainan Island was a part of Guangdong Province. Hainan
became a separate province only in 1988. The Qing Dynasty saw one of the largest expansions
of Chinese territory throughout the Chinese dynasties. The Qing dynasty ceded Formosa to
Japan in 1895 following the Qing’s defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895).
9. 1595 Ortelius Map - Champa Kingdom and Champa Sea
Before Portuguese navigators coined the name South China Sea, the sea was known as the Champa Sea,
after the Cham people who established a great kingdom in central Vietnam from the late 2nd to the 17th
century. The Chams had sailboats with outriggers, just like the sailboats of the Austronesians. The
ancestors of the Chams spoke a Malayo-Polynesian language that is derived from the Austronesian
language, just like the Tagalog language. The word “cham” comes from the flower of the champaka tree.
This flower is the symbol of the Cham Kingdom. The Chams are believed to have migrated from Borneo
to central Vietnam.
“For centuries the South
China Sea was known by
navigators throughout Asia
as the Champa Sea, named
for a great empire that
controlled all of central
Vietnam xxx.” - National
Geographic, June 18, 2014
10. Islands in the Champa Sea Had Austronesian Names
1596 Linschoten Map: “Pulo” in Tagalog means an “island, isolated place.”
https://www.tagalog-dictionary.com/search?word=pulo. This map was made during the Ming Dynasty
(1368-1644).
11. Maritime Zones under UNCLOS
An island above water at high tide is entitled to a 12 NM territorial sea. If such island is capable of human habitation or economic life of its
own, it is entitled to a 200 NM EEZ. If there is a natural prolongation of its extended continental shelf, it is entitled to an ECS up to
where the natural prolongation ends, but not exceeding 150 NM from the outer limits of its EEZ. The maximum maritime zone a coastal
state can claim is 150 NM from the outer limits of its 200 NM EEZ (or 100 NM from the 2500 meter isobath, a limitation which does not
apply to coastal states in the South China Sea based on the geology and geomorphology of the South China Sea). China is claiming
maritime zones more than 150 NM from the outer limits of its EEZ.
13. • None of the geologic features (rocks and islands) in the
Spratlys is capable of “human habitation or economic life of
[its] own” so as to be entitled to a 200-NM EEZ; thus the
Tribunal has jurisdiction to rule on the maritime issues in the
Spratlys
• The Spratlys cannot be taken as a single unit to determine
capability to sustain human habitation or economic life;
• To be entitled to a 200-NM EEZ, the geologic feature must
have the “objective capacity, in its natural condition, to sustain
either a stable community of people or economic activity that is not
dependent on outside resources or purely extractive in nature.”
• Itu Aba, the largest geologic feature in the Spratlys, does not
satisfy this requirement. Thus, Itu Aba is entitled only to a 12-
NM territorial sea.
• The Tribunal upheld the Philippine position on this issue.
Status of Geologic Features in
Spratlys to Generate 200-NM EEZ
17. Low Tide Elevation vs. Rock/Island
A low-tide elevation is not entitled to a territorial sea or any maritime zone. A rock above water at high tide is
entitled to a 12 NM territorial sea. An island capable of human habitation or economic life of its own is entitled to a
12 NM territorial sea and a 200 NM EEZ, and if there is a natural prolongation of its extended continental shelf, it
is entitled to an ECS up to the end of such natural prolongation but not exceeding 150 NM from the outer limits of
its EEZ (or 100 NM from the 2500 meter isobath, if applicable).
18. • Of the seven (7) reefs China occupies in the Spratlys, five (5) are high-
tide elevations (above water at high tide), namely: Fiery Cross Reef,
Johnson South Reef, Gaven Reef, Cuarteron Reef and McKennan
Reef; these reefs are entitled to 12-NM territorial sea;
• The two (2) other reefs - Mischief Reef and Subi Reef - are low-tide
elevations not entitled to a territorial sea; they form part of the
Philippines’ submerged continental shelf; only the Philippines can
erect structures or artificial islands on these reefs; China cannot
appropriate these low-tide elevations situated within the Philippine
EEZ; China’s structures on these reefs are illegal; Ayungin Shoal,
occupied by the Philippines, is also a low-tide elevation;
• The Tribunal upheld the Philippine position on this issue except for
Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef, which the Philippines argued are
only low-tide elevations but the Tribunal ruled they are high-tide
elevations entitled to 12-NM territorial sea.
Status of Geologic Features in Spratlys -
Whether Low-Tide or High-Tide Elevations
19. Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef
McKennan Reef is a high-tide feature controlled by China within the Philippine EEZ in the
Spratlys. As a high-tide feature, McKenna Reef is entitled to a 12-NM territorial sea. The other
high-tide feature controlled by China in the Spratlys and within the Philippine EEZ is Johnson
South Reef.
21. • Scarborough Shoal is a high-tide elevation entitled to
12-NM territorial sea but not to a 200-NM EEZ since
obviously it is not capable of human habitation;
• The territorial sea of Scarborough Shoal is a traditional
fishing ground of Filipino and Chinese fishermen, as
well as fishermen from other countries; China cannot
prevent Filipino fishermen from fishing in Scarborough
Shoal;
• The Tribunal upheld the Philippine position on this
issue.
Status of Scarborough Shoal;
Right to Traditional Fishing
23. Disputed Area after the Ruling of Tribunal
The Tribunal ruled that McKennan Reef is above water at high tide. McKennan Reef and Johnson South
Reef are the only Chinese-occupied high-tide features within the Philippine EEZ in the Spratlys.
Scarborough Shoal, McKennan Reef and Johnson South Reef are thus the only disputed land features
occupied by China within the entire Philippine EEZ. The Tribunal ruled that these three land features
generate only a 12-NM territorial sea, with no EEZ.
24. The Philippine EEZ in the SCS has an area of about 381,000
square kilometers. Deducting the 4,650 square kilometers
total territorial seas of Johnson South Reef, McKennan Reef
and Scarborough Shoal, the Philippines has an EEZ of about
376,350 square kilometers in the SCS free from any Chinese
claim.
This maritime area is larger than the total land area of the
Philippines of 300,000 square kilometers. All the living
and non-living resources in this maritime area – the fish, oil,
gas and other minerals – belong exclusively to the
Philippines.
The Philippines’ EEZ in the South China Sea
Is Larger than its Total Land Area
25. China violated its obligation under UNCLOS to
“protect and preserve the marine environment”
when China:
1. Dredged and built islands on seven (7) reefs;
2. Failed to prevent its fishermen from harvesting
endangered species like sea turtles, corals and
giant clams in the Spratlys and Scarborough
Shoal.
The Tribunal upheld the Philippine position on this
issue. This is the first time that an international
tribunal ruled on harm to the coral reef ecosystem.
Harm to the Marine Environment
27. Mischief (Panganiban) Reef May 1, 2016
Mischief Reef is a circular atoll with a diameter of 7.4 KM, and its lagoon has an area of 3,600 hectares.
The average depth inside the lagoon is 26 meters. As of November 2015, China has created an artificial
island of 590 hectares. Mischief Reef is 125 NM from Palawan and 596 NM from Hainan.
Source: http://time.com/
28. Chinese Reef Killer Dredges 4,500 Cubic Meters of Sand per Hour
The Tiang Jing Hao (Heavenly Whale) dredger, a 127 meter-long seagoing cutter suction
dredger designed by the German engineering company Vosta LMG. At 6,017 gross tons,
this dredger is the largest in Asia. China has dozens of dredgers in the Spratlys.
29. How China Dredged in the Spratlys
Coral reef and hard sediment on the seabed are pulverized by the rotating cutter.
Pulverized materials are sucked into the ship. Pulverized materials are transported
by pressure through a floating pipe. Pulverized materials are deposited on the rim of
the reef.
31. Tanmen Fishermen’s Harvest of Giant Clams
http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/satellite-images-show-ecocide-in-the-south-china-sea/
32. Dr. John McManus, the world-renowned marine
scientist who studied the Spratlys in the 1990s, went
back to the Spratlys last February 2016. He surveyed
several reefs, including those exploited by clam dredgers
from Tanmen, Hainan. Dr. McManus said:
“The damage was much worse than even I expected
it to be. I swam over one whole kilometer of reef
before I saw a single living invertebrate. It was really
massive, massive destruction.”*
*http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2016/0720/In-South-China-Sea-case-
ruling-on-environment-hailed-as-precedent
Severe Harm to the Fragile Marine Ecosystem
33. China violated the exclusive right of the Philippines to its
EEZ by:
1. Interfering with the fishing activities of Filipino
fishermen within the Philippine EEZ;
2. Interfering with the petroleum activities of Filipino vessels
within the Philippine EEZ;
3. Failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing within
Philippine EEZ;
4. Constructing artificial islands and structures (Mischief
Reef and Subi Reef) within the Philippine EEZ and
continental shelf.
The Tribunal upheld the Philippine position on these issues.
Unlawful Chinese Actions
34. Chinese Coast Guard Vessels Harassed
A Philippine Survey Ship in Reed Bank in 2011
In March 2011, two Chinese coast guard vessels, the CMS-71 and CMS-75, prevented a Philippine-
commissioned ship, the MV Veritas Voyager, from undertaking oil and gas survey in the Reed Bank,
which is entirely within the Philippines’ EEZ. The 9-dashed lines cut through Malampaya, the
Philippines’ largest operating gas field which supplies 40% of the energy requirement of Luzon.
Malampaya will run out of gas in 10-12 years.
35. 1. China violated its obligation not to aggravate the
dispute during the arbitration when (a) China
dredged the reefs and built the islands, and (b)
destroyed the evidence of the natural condition of
the geologic features in the Spratlys.
2. China violated its obligation to observe maritime
safety when Chinese coast guard vessels crossed the
path of Philippine fishing vessels at high speed.
The Tribunal upheld the Philippine position on these
issues.
Other Issues Resolved by the Tribunal
36. The Tribunal refused to rule on the stand-off between
Philippine marines and Chinese coast guard vessels in
Ayungin Shoal, stating that this issue involves “military
activities” outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
The Philippines asked the Tribunal to direct China to
respect in the future the rights and freedoms of the
Philippines under UNCLOS.
The Tribunal also declined to rule on this issue since
bad faith is not presumed in the performance of duties
under UNCLOS, which already mandates that the
parties to the dispute shall comply with the arbitral
award.
Other Issues the Philippines Did Not Win
37. Article 288(4), UNCLOS: “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.”
Article 9, Annex VII, UNCLOS: “xxx Absence of a party or failure of a
party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings. xxx.”
Article 11, Annex VII, UNCLOS. “The award shall be final and without
appeal, unless the parties to the dispute have agreed in advance to an
appellate procedure. It shall be complied with by the parties to the
dispute.”
Article 300, UNCLOS. “State parties shall fulfill in good faith the
obligations assumed under this Convention xxx.”
Thus, China and the Philippines, which have both ratified UNCLOS, have
the obligation to comply in good faith with the award.
Next Steps – Enforcement of Ruling
38. 1. Enforcement of the ruling by the world’s naval
powers with respect to freedom of navigation
and overflight for military vessels and aircraft in
the high seas and EEZs of the South China Sea.
2. Enforcement of the ruling by the Philippines
with respect to its exclusive right to exploit the
resources of its EEZ in the South China Sea.
Two Aspects in Enforcement of Ruling
39. Maritime Zones under UNCLOS
An island above water at high tide is entitled to a 12 NM territorial sea. If such island is capable of human habitation or economic life of its
own, it is entitled to a 200 NM EEZ. If there is a natural prolongation of its extended continental shelf, it is entitled to an ECS up to
where the natural prolongation ends, but not exceeding 150 NM from the outer limits of its EEZ. The maximum maritime zone a coastal
state can claim is 150 NM from the outer limits of its 200 NM EEZ (or 100 NM from the 2500 meter isobath, a limitation which does not
apply to coastal states in the South China Sea based on the geology and geomorphology of the South China Sea). China is claiming
maritime zones more than 150 NM from the outer limits of its EEZ.
41. 1. Philippine response if China installs a gas
platform in the Reed Bank;
2. Recovery of damages from China for severe
harm to the marine environment in the Spratlys;
3. Suspension of China’s exploration permits for
the seabed until China complies with the ruling;
4. Suspension of China’s application for an
extended continental shelf in the East China Sea
until China complies with the ruling.
Enforcement of Exclusive Right to the EEZ
42. Dr. Graham Allison, Director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s
Center for Science and International Affairs, wrote in the 16 July
2016 issue of the Singapore Strait Times:
1. Nicaragua v. United States: “In the Nicaragua case, when the
court (ICJ) found in favor of Nicaragua, the U.S. refused.”
2. Netherlands v. Russia: Russia “ignored the tribunal’s order that
the crew be released while the dispute was being resolved.”
3. Mauritius v. United Kingdom: “[A]n Arbitral Tribunal ruled for
Mauritius and against Britain xxx. The British government
disregarded the ruling xxx.”
Graham’s article, entitled “Heresy to say great powers don’t bow to
tribunals on the Law of the Sea?”, was quoted by columnists in the
Philippines and abroad.
Misconceptions that Great Powers
Ignore Rulings of International Tribunals
43. 1. Nicaragua v. United States (ICJ, 1986)
In 1986, the ICJ ruled that the U.S. violated the territorial integrity of
Nicaragua when the U.S. armed the contra rebels and mined the territorial
waters of Nicaragua, among others. The U.S. had refused to participate in the
proceedings and also refused to comply with the ruling, which directed the U.S.
and Nicaragua to negotiate the amount of damages the U.S. should pay
Nicaragua.
Nicaragua asked the ICJ to proceed with the hearings on the amount of
damages, which Nicaragua claimed run into billions of dollars. In 1991, while
the proceedings were on-going, the U.S. and Nicaragua struck a deal: the U.S.
would provide US$541 million in economic aid to Nicaragua if Nicaragua
would withdraw the pending case with the ICJ. On 5 June 1991, Nicaragua’s
National Assembly overwhelmingly repealed the law requiring the U.S. to pay
damages to Nicaragua. On 12 September 1991, Nicaragua informed the ICJ
that Nicaragua “Places on record the discontinuance by the Republic of
Nicaragua of the proceedings instituted by the Application filed on 9 April
1984.”
Nicaragua, Arctic Sunrise and Mauritius Cases
44. 2. Netherlands v. Russia (Annex VII Tribunal, UNCLOS, 2013)
On 22 November 2013, the ITLOS, upon a provisional measure
requested by the Netherlands, ordered: “The Russian Federation shall
immediately release the vessel Arctic Sunrise and all persons who have
been detained, upon the posting of a bond or other financial security by
the Netherlands which shall be in the amount of 3,600,000 euros, to be
posted with the Russian Federation in the form of a bank guarantee.”
Russia refused to participate in the proceedings and refused to comply
with the ITLOS order.
On 18 December 2013, the Russian Parliament amended its amnesty
law to include hooliganism, the crime that the Arctic Sunrise crew were
charged. Before Christmas day of December 2013, Russian President
Putin pardoned the Artic Sunrise crew who were then allowed to leave
Russia. The Arctic Sunrise vessel was likewise allowed to leave. Putin
stated that the crew and vessel were released under Russian law, and not
because of the ITLOS order.
45. 3. Mauritius v. United Kingdom (Annex VII Tribunal, UNCLOS, 2015)
On 18 March 2015, the Tribunal ruled that “in establishing the MPA
surrounding the Chagos Archipelago, the United Kingdom breached its
obligations under Articles 2(3), 56(2), and 194(4) of the Convention.” These
provisions required the U.K. to consult Mauritius, the coastal state, before
establishing a marine protected area surrounding the Chagos Archipelago.
On 15 June 2015, MP Patrick Grady of the UK Parliament raised a
parliamentary inquiry to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs as to “what steps the Government is taking to comply with the award of
the Arbitral Tribunal in the case of Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration
(Mauritius v. U.K.) dated 18 March 2015.”
On 23 June 2015, MP James Duddridge, Under-Secretary for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs, replied:
“The Government wishes to implement the award in the spirit of greatest
possible cooperation, and has written to the Mauritian government several
times since the award, making a proposal to hold consultations about the
protection of the marine environment as early as July.”
46. As a win-win solution to the territorial dispute in the Spratlys, (the Tribunal’s
ruling does not resolve the territorial dispute), all claimant states should suspend
for 100 years their territorial claims and declare all the low-tide and high-tide
features in the Spratlys, and an area of 3--NM around each feature, an international
marine peace park* for the benefit of all coastal states in the South China Sea.
This insures that the Spratlys will remain the South China Sea’s nursery where fish
spawn. The eggs and larvae of fish that spawn in the Spratlys are carried by
currents to the coasts of China, Vietnam, Luzon, Palawan, Malaysia, Brunei,
Natuna Islands, as well as the Celebes and Sulu seas.
The claimant states will hold on to whatever islands/structures they now possess.
Only coast guard personnel and vessels can be stationed in the Spratlys. The
islands/structures can only be used for marine scientific research and eco-tourism.
There is a precedent to this. The 1994 peace agreement between Israel and Jordan
created the Red Sea Marine Peace Park in the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea.
* First proposed by Dr. John W. McManus, Kwang-Tsao Shao and Szu-Yin Lin in 2010. http://www.tandfonline.com/
doi/abs/10.1080/00908320.2010.499303?journalCode=uodl20
Declare the Spratlys an International Marine Peace Park