“Historic claims, while important, do not override the specific provisions and legal structures established by UNCLOS”
The South China Sea dispute involves several nations, but the primary contention lies between China and the Philippines.
The area is rich in natural resources and holds strategic maritime importance.
Before the 2016 tribunal decision, China claimed most of the South China Sea based on the “nine-dash line,” asserting historic rights.
The Philippines, on the other hand, asserted its rights under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, particularly regarding its Exclusive Economic Zone.
The Philippines brought a case against China in 2013, seeking clarity on maritime entitlements and the status of features in the South China Sea under UNCLOS.
In 2016, the tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, stating China’s claims based on the nine-dash line were incompatible with UNCLOS, and several features claimed by China were not entitled to EEZs or continental shelves.
Philippine perspectives
UNCLOS Framework: The 2016 tribunal decision was made under the UNCLOS framework, which both China and the Philippines are parties to. The tribunal was established under Annex VII of UNCLOS, allowing for arbitration even without the participation of one party.
Jurisdiction: The tribunal determined the issues raised by the Philippines were not covered by China’s Article 298 declaration, which excludes certain disputes from compulsory arbitration. This gave the tribunal jurisdiction to proceed with the case.
Invalidity of Historic Rights: The tribunal ruled that China’s historic claims, represented by the nine-dash line, had no legal basis under UNCLOS. The convention supersedes any historical claims not explicitly recognized by UNCLOS provisions.
Status of Features: The tribunal concluded certain maritime features claimed by China, like Mischief Reef and Subi Reef, were low-tide elevations and not entitled to EEZs or continental shelves. This was grounded in Articles 13 and 121 of UNCLOS.
China’s grounds
Historic Rights: China argues its claims in the South China Sea are based on historic rights that predate UNCLOS. Beijing asserts these historic claims are legitimate and should be recognized alongside the provisions of UNCLOS.
Exceeding Jurisdiction: China maintains that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on issues that it considers to be matters of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, which are excluded from compulsory arbitration under its Article 298 declaration.
Non-Participation: China chose not to participate in the arbitration, claiming the tribunal lacked authority to adjudicate the dispute. Beijing argues the tribunal’s decision is therefore illegitimate and not binding.
Western Conspiracy: China often frames the ruling as part of a broader strategy by Western nations, particularly the United States, to contain its rise and influence in the region.
Assessment
The Philippines appears to have the upper hand from a legal standpoint. The tribunal’s decision was made under the auspices of UNCLOS, to which both countries are signatories.
The tribunal meticulously addressed jurisdictional issues, concluding the matters brought by the Philippines were within its purview.
By dismissing the nine-dash line, the tribunal reinforced the primacy of UNCLOS in maritime disputes, a cornerstone of international maritime law.
China’s arguments, while significant politically, do not hold the same weight legally within the UNCLOS framework.
Historic claims, while important, do not override the specific provisions and legal structures established by UNCLOS.
Furthermore, the decision by China to non-participate did not affect the legal binding nature of the tribunal’s ruling.
Recommendations
For the Philippines:
Diplomatic Engagement: Continue to seek diplomatic channels to engage China, leveraging the support of international law and the tribunal’s decision.
Regional Alliances: Strengthen alliances with ASEAN nations and other supportive countries to present a united front in upholding the tribunal’s ruling.
Economic Development: Focus on economic development in its EEZ, including exploring resources and enhancing maritime security to reinforce its sovereignty.
For China:
Constructive Dialogue: Engage in constructive dialogue with the Philippines and other claimant states to find mutually acceptable solutions while respecting international law.
Confidence-Building Measures: Implement confidence-building measures such as joint development agreements and maritime cooperation initiatives to reduce tensions.
Adherence to International Norms: Consider aligning its policies more closely with international norms and laws, potentially re-evaluating its stance on the tribunal’s decision for long-term regional stability.
The 2016 arbitral tribunal decision represents a significant legal ruling in the South China Sea dispute, favoring the Philippines’ interpretation under UNCLOS.
While China continues to reject the decision, the international legal community largely views the ruling as binding and legitimate.
Moving forward, both nations would benefit from diplomatic engagement and adherence to international law to ensure regional stability and cooperation.
