asia-pacific journal of ocean law and policy
1 (2016) 121-126
brill.com/apoc
Philippine Arbitration against China over the
South China Sea
Lowell Bautista
University of Wollongong, Australia
lowell@uow.edu.au
1
Institution of Arbitral Proceedings
On 22 January 2013 the Philippines initiated international arbitration
against the People’s Republic of China (China) regarding its territorial and
maritime dispute in the South China Sea – known as the West Philippine Sea
in Manila.1 It was a bold move which has been labeled a “game changer” in the
continuing saga of longstanding conflicting claims in the South China Sea.2
The Philippines decided to take legal action after a series of increasing aggressive behavior and provocative actions on the part of China. This included a
tense standoff in April 2012 between the Philippines and China over access to
Scarborough Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc) which brought tensions in the South
China Sea to their highest level since the 1994 Mischief Reef incident.
2
Factual Background
The Philippines asserts that China’s claim to “sovereignty” and “sovereign
rights” over the maritime area within its so-called “nine dash line” encompassing around 80 per cent of the entire South China Sea has interfered with the
rights of the Philippines under the United Nations Convention on the Law of
* Lecturer, School of Law and Staff Member, Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources
and Security (ancors), Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts, University of Wollongong,
Australia.
1 Republic of the Philippines, Department Of Foreign Affairs, Notification and Statement of
Claim, Manila, 22 January 2013. [Hereinafter, Notification and Statement of Claim].
2 Oliver Teves, ‘Philippine president says arbitration is only peaceful way to settle sea dispute
with China’, The Canadian Press, 22 October 2014.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/24519391-00101008
122
Bautista
the Sea (LOSC) over its own exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental
shelf.3 In addition, according to the Philippines, China has seized control and
occupied several small, uninhabitable coral projections, submerged features
and protruding rocks barely above water at high tide.4 The Philippines also asserts that China has claimed maritime zones surrounding these features greater than 12 nautical miles from which it has excluded the Philippines despite
these waters being located within Philippine eez or in international waters.5
These features include Mischief Reef, McKennan Reef, Gaven Reef and Subi
Reef, which, in the view of the Philippines, are at best low tide elevations and
part of the Philippine continental shelf or the international seabed.6 The Philippines alleges further that China has also seized the following features in the
Spratly Islands: Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef, which it
considers as “submerged reefs with no more than a few rocks protruding above
sea level at high tide.”7
In essence, the Philippines is arguing, first, that these submerged features in
the South China Sea which are not above sea level at high tide, are not islands
under the Convention. Secondly, these submerged features are part of the seabed and subject to the regime of the continental shelf under Part vi of the Convention and cannot be acquired by a State or subject to its sovereignty since they
are not located in a coastal state’s territorial sea. Third, since these submerged
features are not above sea level at high tide, nor are they located on China’s continental shelf, the occupation of China of these submerged features is unlawful
under the Convention. Fourth, the features which remain above water at high
tide qualify as “rocks” under Article 121(3) of the Convention. Therefore, they
only generate an entitlement of a maximum 12-nautical territorial sea. Anything beyond this is unlawful under the Convention, as China has claimed over
the features. Lastly, China’s exploitation and prevention of the Philippines from
exploiting the living and non-living resources in the Philippines’ eez and continental shelf, as well as the interference with the exercise by the Philippines of
its navigational rights over these waters, are all unlawful under the Convention.8
The Philippines is aware of the 2006 Chinese Declaration9 and has
avoided raising subjects or claims that China has, by virtue of that D
­ eclaration,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Notification and Statement of Claim, paragraph 2.
Notification and Statement of Claim, paragraphs 4 and 14.
Notification and Statement of Claim, paragraphs 4, 12 and 13.
Notification and Statement of Claim, paragraphs 14 to 19.
Notification and Statement of Claim, paragraphs 22 and 23.
Notification and Statement of Claim, paragraph 31.
China, Declaration made after ratification (25 August 2006), Declarations and statements, United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, available at
asia-pacific journal of ocean law and policy 1 (2016) 121-126