Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
7, no known claims
On 29 October 2015, the PCA published the
award by the tribunal on Jurisdiction and
Admissibility for the case. The tribunal found
that it has jurisdiction to consider the following
seven Philippines' Submissions. (Each number
is the Philippines' Submissions number.) The
tribunal reserved consideration of its
jurisdiction to rule on Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, and
14.
 No.3 Philippines ‘position that
Scarborough Shoal is a rock under
Article 121(3).
 No.4 Philippines' position that
Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal,
and Subi Reef are low tide elevations
that do not generate entitlement to
maritime zones.
 No.6 Whether Gaven Reef and
McKennan Reef (including Hughes
Reef) are low-tide elevations "that do
not generate any maritime
entitlements of their own".
 No.7 Whether Johnson Reef,
Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef
do or do not generate an entitlement
to an exclusive economic zone or
continental shelf.
 No.10 "premised on [the] fact that
China has unlawfully prevented
Philippine fishermen from carrying out
traditional fishing activities within the
territorial sea of Scarborough Shoal."
 No.11 "China's failure to protect and
preserve the marine environment at
these two shoals [Scarborough Shoal
and Second Thomas Shoal]."
 No.13 Philippines’ protest against
China's "purported law enforcement
activities as violating the Convention
on the International Regulations for
the Prevention of Collisions at Sea and
also violating UNCLOS".
The tribunal stated in the award that there are
continuing disputes in all of the 15 submissions
from the Philippines, but for submissions such
as No.3, No.4, No.6 and No.
from the Philippines prior to the initiation of
this arbitration exist, and that China was not
aware of (nor had previously opposed) such
claims prior to the initiation of arbitration. The
Chinese Society of International Law (CSIL) has
stated that the tribunal was trying to hide its
incapability to prove that maritime
entitlements of the nine features constitute
the essence of the disputes.
For Submissions No.8 to No.14, the tribunal
held the view that the lawfulness of China's
maritime activities in the South China Sea is
not related to sovereignty. CSIL has asserted
that the disagreements do concern territorial
sovereignty, and constitute no dispute with
respect to the claims advanced by the
Philippines.[4]
Award
On 12 July 2016, the Permanent Court of
Arbitration published an arbitration award by
the tribunal which it states is final and binding
as set out in the Convention.[30][42]
Conclusions expressed in the award included
the following:
Regarding the "Nine-Dash Line" and China's
claim in the maritime areas of the South China
Sea
 The [UNCLOS] Convention defines the
scope of maritime entitlements in the
South China Sea, which may not
extend beyond the limits imposed
therein.
 China's claims to historic rights, or
other sovereign rights or jurisdiction,
with respect to the maritime areas of
the South China Sea encompassed by
the relevant part of the 'nine-dash line'
are contrary to the Convention and
without lawful effect to the extent that
they exceed the geographic and
substantive limits of China's maritime
entitlements under the Convention.
 The Convention superseded any
historic rights or other sovereign rights
or jurisdiction in excess of the limits
imposed therein.
Regarding the status of features as
above/below water at high tide (Submissions
no. 4 and 6)
 High-tide features: (a) Scarborough
Shoal, (b) Cuarteron Reef, (c) Fiery
Cross Reef, (d) Johnson Reef, (e)
McKennan Reef, and (f) Gaven Reef
(North).
 Low-tide elevations: (a) Hughes Reef,
(b) Gaven Reef (South), (c) Subi Reef,
(d) Mischief Reef, (e) Second Thomas
Shoal.
 Hughes Reef lies within 12 nautical
miles of the high-tide features on
McKennan Reef and Sin Cowe Island,
Gaven Reef (South) lies within 12
nautical miles of the high-tide features
at Gaven Reef (North) and Namyit
Island, and that Subi Reef lies within 12
nautical miles of the high-tide feature
of Sandy Cay on the reefs to the west
of Thitu.
Regarding the status of features as
rocks/islands (Submissions no. 3, 5, and 7)
 Scarborough Shoal contains, within
the meaning of Article 121(1) of the
Convention, naturally formed areas of
land, surrounded by water, which are
above water at high tide. However,
under Article 121(3) of the
Convention, the high-tide features at
Scarborough Shoal are rocks that
cannot sustain human habitation or
economic life of their own and
accordingly shall have no exclusive
economic zone or continental shelf.
 Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and
Fiery Cross Reef contain, within the
meaning of Article 121(1) of the
Convention, naturally formed areas of
land, surrounded by water, which are
above water at high tide. However, for
purposes of Article 121(3) of the
Convention, the high-tide features at
Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and
Fiery Cross Reef are rocks that cannot
sustain human habitation or economic
life of their own and accordingly shall
have no exclusive economic zone or
continental shelf.
 The high-tide features at Gaven Reef
(North) and McKennan Reef are rocks
that cannot sustain human habitation
or economic life of their own and
accordingly shall have no exclusive
economic zone or continental shelf.
 Mischief Reef and Second Thomas
Shoal are both low-tide elevations that
generate no maritime zones of their
own [and] that none of the high-tide
features in the Spratly Islands are
capable of sustaining human
habitation or an economic life of their
own within the meaning of those
terms in Article 121(3) of the
Convention. All of the high-tide
features in the Spratly Islands are
therefore legally rocks for purposes of
Article 121(3) and do not generate
entitlements to an exclusive economic
zone or continental shelf. There is,
accordingly, no possible entitlement
by China to any maritime zone in the
area of either Mischief Reef or Second
Thomas Shoal and no jurisdictional
obstacle to the tribunal's
consideration of the Philippines'
Submission No. 5.
 Both Mischief Reef and Second
Thomas Shoal are located within 200
nautical miles of the Philippines’ coast
on the island of Palawan and are
located in an area that is not
overlapped by the entitlements
generated by any maritime feature
claimed by China. It follows, therefore,
that, as between the Philippines and
China, Mischief Reef and Second
Thomas Shoal form part of the
 exclusive economic zone and
continental shelf of the Philippines.
Regarding alleged interference with the
Philippines' sovereign rights in its EEZ and
continental shelf (Submission no. 8)
 China has, through the operation of its
marine surveillance vessels with
respect to M/V Veritas Voyager on 1 to
2 March 2011 breached Article 77 of
the Convention with respect to the
Philippines' sovereign rights over the
non-living resources of its continental
shelf in the area of Reed Bank [and]
that China has, by promulgating its
2012 moratorium on fishing in the
South China Sea, without exception for
areas of the South China Sea falling
within the exclusive economic zone of
the Philippines and without limiting
the moratorium to Chinese flagged
vessels, breached Article 56 of the
Convention with respect to the
Philippines’ sovereign rights over the
living resources of its exclusive
economic zone.
Regarding alleged failure to prevent Chinese
nationals from exploiting the Philippines'
living resources (Submission no. 9)
 China has, through the operation of its
marine surveillance vessels in
tolerating and failing to exercise due
diligence to prevent fishing by Chinese
flagged vessels at Mischief Reef and
Second Thomas Shoal in May 2013,
failed to exhibit due regard for the
Philippines' sovereign rights with
respect to fisheries in its exclusive
economic zone. Accordingly, China has
breached its obligations under Article
58(3) of the Convention.
Regarding China's actions in respect of
traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal
(Submission no. 10)
China has, through the operation of its official
vessels at Scarborough Shoal from May 2012
onwards, unlawfully prevented Filipino
fishermen from engaging in traditional fishing
at Scarborough Shoal.
Regarding alleged failure to protect and
preserve) the marine environment
(Submissions no. 11 and 12(B))
 China has, through its toleration and
protection of, and failure to prevent
Chinese fishing vessels engaging in
harmful harvesting activities of
endangered species at Scarborough
Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal and other
features in the Spratly Islands,
breached Articles 192 and 194(5) of
the Convention.
 China has, through its island-building
activities at Cuarteron Reef, Fiery
Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North),
Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, Subi Reef
and Mischief Reef, breached Articles
192, 194(1), 194(5), 197, 123, and 206
of the Convention.
Regarding occupation and construction
activities on Mischief Reef (Submission no.
12)
 China has, through its construction of
installations and artificial islands at
Mischief Reef without the
authorisation of the Philippines,
breached Articles 60 and 80 of the
Convention with respect to the
Philippines' sovereign rights in its
exclusive economic zone and
continental shelf [and], as a low-tide
elevation, Mischief Reef is not capable
of appropriation.[59]
Regarding operation of law enforcement
vessels in a dangerous manner (Submission
no. 13)
 China has, by virtue of the conduct of
Chinese law enforcement vessels in
the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal,
 created serious risk of collision and
danger to Philippine vessels and
personnel. The Tribunal finds China to
have violated Rules 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, and
16 of the COLREGS and, as a
consequence, to be in breach of Article
94 of the Convention.

Regarding aggravation or extension of the

dispute between the parties (Submission No.
14)

 China has in the course of these

proceedings aggravated and extended
the disputes between the Parties
through its dredging, artificial island-
building, and construction activities [in
several particulars itemized in the
award].

Regarding the future conduct of the parties

(Submission no. 15)

 Both Parties are obliged to comply

with the Convention, including its
provisions regarding the resolution of
disputes, and to respect the rights and
freedoms of other States under the
Convention. Neither Party contests
this.