• PCA Jurisdictional Hearing

PCA Jurisdictional Hearing (Photo : UN PCA)

The U.N. Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) released on Tuesday, July 12, its decision on the arbitration case brought by the Philippines over disputed islands in the South China Sea. The court favored the Philippines, as expected, and found that certain areas are in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines.

Like Us on Facebook

As such, the PCA said China violated Manila’s sovereign rights in three areas. These are in interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, the construction of artificial islands and failure to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone.

The tribunal also stated that Filipino fishermen, like those from China, had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and in restricting access to the shoal, Beijing violated the rights of the Filipino fishermen. By physically obstructing Philippine vessels, the Chinese Coast Guard unlawfully created a serious risk of collision.

The court also disputed China’s stand that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the dispute over historic rights and source of maritime entitlements in South China Sea. It said pre-existing rights were considered but not adopted at the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

“The Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention,” the press release said.

While it acknowledged that Chinese fishermen and navigators – and even those from other countries – use those islands in South China Sea, China failed to provide evidence that it had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or its resources. The tribunal junked China’s citing the “nine-dash line” as its basis in claiming historic rights to resources as lacking in legal basis.

As for the Spratly Islands, the court first evaluated if certain reefs claimed by China are above water at high tide. If it is above water at high tide at least a 12 nautical mile territorial, it would generate an entitlement, but if less than the benchmark, there would be no entitlement. The tribunal also took into account if the reefs claimed by China could generate maritime zones beyond 12 nautical miles.

The court concluded “none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones” and declared that certain sea areas are within the Philippine exclusive economic zone since those are do not overlap any possible entitlement of China.

Finally, the court said it does not have jurisdiction over the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement ships at Second Thomas shoal because the dispute involved military activities and excluded from compulsory settlement. But the tribunal said China’s large-scale reclamation and construction of artificial islands are incompatible with the obligations on a state because it inflicted harm on the marine environment.

Ahead of the ruling, China said it would ignore the PCA decision, claiming the tribunal lacks jurisdiction. In a statement, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said, “We won’t accept any of their so-called materials, no matter what they are,” reported Reuters.