1.

Explain the position of the Republic of the Philippines

(1)
AS TO CHINA’S CLAIM TO HISTORIC RIGHTS IN THE MARITIME AREAS OF THE
SOUTH CHINA SEA (SUBMISSIONS NO. 1 AND 2)
China’s rights and entitlements in the South China Sea must be based on the Convention and not
on any claim to historic rights. In this respect, the Philippines posits that China’s claim to rights
within the ‘nine-dash line’ marked on Chinese maps are without lawful effect to the extent that they
exceed the entitlements that China would be permitted by the Convention.
(Philippine’s objections to China’s May 7, 2009 Notes Verbales)
- under the Roman notion of dominium maris and the international law principle of “la terre domine la mer” which
states that the land dominates the sea, necessarily exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction over the waters around or
adjacent to each relevant geological feature in the KIG as provided for under the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

At any rate, the extent of the waters that are “adjacent” to the relevant geological features are definite and
determinable under UNCLOS, specifically under Article 121 (Regime of Islands) of the said Convention.

since the adjacent waters of the relevant geological features are definite and subject to legal and technical
measurement, the claim as well by the People’s Republic of China on the “relevant waters as well as the seabed and
subsoil thereof” (as reflected in the so-called 9-dash line map attached to Notes Verbales CML/17/2009 dated 7 May
2009 and CML/18/2009 dated 7 May 2009) outside of the aforementioned relevant geological features in the KIG
and their “adjacent waters” would have no basis under international law, specifically UNCLOS.

(Philippine’s arguments as to Merits on Day 1)

Prior to the Convention, the Philippines argues, “[t]he sea was subject only to two principles: the
principle of the freedom of the seas, which prohibits appropriation by any state; and the principle of
control over a limited area by the immediately adjacent coastal state, which prohibits appropriation by any
other state.”169 In the Philippines’ view, “China’s claim . . . is inconsistent with both principles.”
(2)
AS TO THE STATUS OF FEATURES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA (SUBMISSIONS
NO. 3 TO 7)
The Convention provides that submerged banks and low-tide elevations are incapable on their own
of generating any entitlements to maritime areas and that “[r]ocks which cannot sustain human
habitation or economic life of their own” do not generate an entitlement to an exclusive economic
zone of 200 nautical miles or to a continental shelf. Thus, all of the features claimed by China in the
Spratly Islands, as well as Scarborough Shoal, fall within one or the other of these categories and
hence, none of these features generates an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or to a
continental shelf.
(Philippine’s arguments as to Merits on Day 2)
Philippine recalls that low-tide elevations are defined and governed by Article 13 of the
Convention.264 “[L]ow-tide elevations are not land territory,” the Philippines emphasises, and
“no measure of occupation or control can establish sovereignty over such features.” 265
According to the Philippines, low-tide elevations can be divided into three categories:
 (a) “[W]here a low-tide elevation is located within 12 miles of a high-tide feature,
sovereignty over the low-tide elevation rests with the State by reason of the sovereignty it
has over the high-tide feature.”266
(b) Where “low-tide elevations . . . lie wholly beyond 12 miles, but within a state’s exclusive
economic zone or continental shelf . . . , the coastal state enjoys exclusive sovereign
rights and jurisdiction with regard to the low-tide elevation in accordance and within the
limits of the regime provided for in Articles 56(3) and 77 of the 1982 Convention.”267
(c) And where a low-tide elevation would be located “at an even greater distance, beyond
areas of national jurisdiction. In such cases, it is part of the deep seabed and subject to
Part XI of the Convention, and no state can purport to exercise sovereignty or any
sovereign rights over or in respect of it.”268
The Philippines also notes that, pursuant to Article 13(1), there is a distinction between low-tide
elevations falling wholly or partially within the territorial sea of a high-tide feature, which may
serve as part of the baseline for the territorial sea of that high-tide feature, and low-tide
elevations located beyond the territorial sea, which “have no capacity to generate claims to
maritime jurisdiction.”
Further, the Philippines submits that Scarborough Shoal and all of the high-tide features in the Spratly
Islands are properly characterised as “rocks” under Article 121(3) of the Convention.389
(3)

AS TO THE CHINESE ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA (SUBMISSIONS NO. 8

TO 13)
China has violated the Convention by:
(a) interfering with the exercise of the Philippines’ rights under the Convention, including with
respect to fishing, oil exploration, navigation, and the construction of artificial islands and
installations;
(b) failing to protect and preserve the marine environment by tolerating and actively supporting
Chinese fishermen in the harvesting of endangered species and the use of harmful fishing methods
that damage the fragile coral reef ecosystem in the South China Sea; and
(c) inflicting severe harm on the marine environment by constructing artificial islands and engaging
in extensive land reclamation at seven reefs in the Spratly Islands.
The Philippines submits that “the waters, seabed and subsoil of the South China Sea within
200 M of the Philippine coast, but beyond 12 M from any high-tide feature within the South
China Sea, constitute the EEZ and continental shelf of the Philippines” under Articles 57 and 76
of the Convention because none of the maritime features claimed by China “generates
entitlement to an EEZ or continental shelf.”712
684. According to the Philippines, “[b]ecause the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the coastal
State in both the continental shelf and EEZ are exclusive, no other State may interfere with their
use or enjoyment.”713 The Philippines submits that “China’s interference with oil and gas
exploration and exploitation, and the measures adopted to prevent fishing in the Philippines’
EEZ and continental shelf, constitute . . . continuing violations of . . . Articles 56, 58, 61, 62, 73,
77 and 81” of the Convention.
(4)
AS TO THE AGGRAVATION OR EXTENSION OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES
(SUBMISSION NO. 14)
China has aggravated and extended the disputes between the Parties during the course of this
arbitration by restricting access to a detachment of Philippine marines stationed at Second Thomas
Shoal and by engaging in the large-scale construction of artificial islands and land reclamation at
seven reefs in the Spratly Islands.
With respect to the merits of Submission No. 14, the Philippines submits that it has a right to have a
dispute settled peacefully, and that China is under a corresponding obligation not to aggravate or extend a
dispute pending its resolution. The Philippines argues that China has engaged in acts that have aggravated
and extended the dispute.

2. Explain the position of the People’s Republic of China

AS TO THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION

It considers non-participation in the arbitration to be its lawful right under the Convention.
It argues that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because (a) “[t]he essence of the subject-matter of the
arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over the relevant maritime features in the South China
Sea” and with regard to the issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, China will not
accept any solution imposed on it or any unilateral resort to a third-party dispute settlement.

(b) “China and the Philippines have agreed, through bilateral instruments and the Declaration on
the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, to settle their relevant disputes through
negotiations”; and (c) the disputes submitted by the Philippines “would constitute an integral part
of maritime delimitation between the two countries.”
(1)
AS TO THE CHINA’S CLAIM TO HISTORIC RIGHTS IN THE MARITIME AREAS OF
THE SOUTH CHINA SEA (SUBMISSIONS NO. 1 AND 2)
Basing on the nine-dashed line, China believes that it 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

(2)

AS TO THE STATUS OF FEATURES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA (SUBMISSIONS

NO. 3 TO 7)
China has not, as far as the Tribunal is aware, specifically set out its position with respect to all
of the maritime features at issue in these proceedings.
The Philippines is putting the cart before the horse by requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to determine, even
before the matter of sovereignty is dealt with, the issue of compatibility of China’s maritime claims with
the Convention.”478 China has repeated this position in more recent statements, arguing that According to
international law, the entity that enjoys maritime entitlements is the State that owns maritime features, rather than
the maritime features themselves. Each maritime entitlement is explicitly tied to the State that it belongs to. In its
provisions on territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf, the UNCLOS
explicitly grants the maritime entitlements to the “coastal State” of relevant maritime zones in question. It is
meaningless to indulge in the empty talk on the legal status and entitlements of maritime features without making a
preliminary decision on who is the “coastal State” and in separation from State sovereignty.

(3)

AS TO THE CHINESE ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA (SUBMISSIONS NO. 8

TO 13)
China considers that it—and not the Philippines—has rights in the areas in question
(4)
AS TO THE AGGRAVATION OR EXTENSION OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES
(SUBMISSION NO. 14)
While being fully aware that its claims essentially deal with territorial sovereignty, that China has never accepted
any compulsory procedures in respect of those claims, and that there has been an agreement existing between
the two States to settle their relevant disputes by negotiations, the Philippines has nevertheless initiated, by
unilateral action, the present arbitration. This surely contravenes the relevant provisions of the Convention, and does
no service to the peaceful settlement of the disputes.1439

3. What is the nine-dashed line?

It is the basis of China’s claim to historic rights in the maritime areas of the south china sea which
appeared on an official Chinese map in 1948. In that year, the Ministry of the Interior of the then
Republican Government of China published a “Map Showing the Location of the Various Islands
in the South Sea” In this original form, the map featured 11 dashes but the two dashes in the Gulf
of Tonkin were removed in 1953, rendering it a ‘nine-dash line’, and the line has appeared
consistently in that nine-dash form in official Chinese cartography since that date.
4. What is the classification of the following land formations?
a. Scarborough Shoal – high-tide feature classified as rock
b. Mischief Reef – low-tide elevation
c. Second Thomas Shoal – low-tide elevation
d. Subi Reef – low-tide elevation
e. Gaven Reef – (North) high-tide feature classified as rock; (South) low-tide elevation
f. McKennan Reef – high-tide feature classified as rock
g. Johnson Reef – high-tide feature classified as rock
h. Cuarteron Reef – high-tide feature classified as rock
i. Fiery Cross Reef – high-tide feature classified as rock

LOW-TIDE ELEVATION refers to a feature that is exposed at low tide but covered with
water at high tide
HIGH-TIDE FEATURES refers to features that are above water at high tide. HIGH-TIDE FEATURES
are further classified into as:
ROCKS refers high-tide features that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their
own” and which therefore, pursuant to Article 121(3), are disqualified from generating an
exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
 FULLY ENTITLED ISLANDS refers to high-tide features which are not rocks, and which
pursuant to Article 121(2) enjoy the same entitlements as other land territory under the
Convention
5. What is the relevance of the court’s classification of the above-mentioned land formations?
Article 13
Low-tide elevations
1. Where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the
territorial sea from the mainland or an island, the low-water line on that elevation may be used as
the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea.
2. Where a low-tide elevation is wholly situated at a distance exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from
the mainland or an island, it has no territorial sea of its own.

Article 121
Regime of Islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone
and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention
applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic
zone or continental shelf.

It is necessary to distinguish the formations as either low-tide elevations or a high-tide features

because Article 13(2) of the convention states that, except where a low-tide elevation falls within
the breadth of a territorial sea generated from a high-tide feature or mainland, it generates no
territorial sea of its own. Further, according to Articles 57 and 76, the breadth of the exclusive
economic zone and continental shelf is measured from the baseline of the territorial sea. Hence,
if a low-tide elevation is not entitled to a territorial sea, it is not entitled to an exclusive
economic zone or continental shelf.
Further, there is a need to distinguish whether the high-tide features are rocks or as fully-
entitled islands because Article 121(3) provides that high-tide features which are deemed to be
rocks are ineligible to generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.