BULAN, JULIE FAITH, A.

BA POLITICAL SCIENCE
INTL LAW DECEMBER 2, 2022

Third Activity: Final Period

1. Distinguish the "Area" from the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones) in relation to the
jurisdiction of states, activities of states, and other distinctions.

- The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is an area where sovereign states have jurisdiction
over resources. The EEZ differs from territorial waters in two respects. First, the
jurisdiction of the coastal state within the EEZ only pertains to natural resources (fish,
offshore oil, and gas), while the coastal state has full jurisdiction within its territorial sea.
Second, the maximum width of the territorial sea is 12 nautical miles from baselines,
while the maximum width of the EEZ is 200 nautical miles. Furthermore, Within its EEZ,
a coastal state can regulate the use of resources as it finds in its best interest and imposes
penalties on those who do not abide by these regulations. The rules pertaining to the EEZ
are a part of the UN Law of the Sea Convention

2. Differentiate the Continental Shelf from the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in terms of
nature, activities that could be undertaken in those areas, and others.
- The continental shelf is a natural seaward extension of a land boundary. This seaward
extension is geologically formed as the seabed slopes away from the coast, typically
consisting of a gradual slope (the continental shelf proper), followed by a steep slope (the
continental slope), and then a more gradual slope leading to the deep seabed floor. These
three areas, collectively known as the continental margin, are rich in natural resources,
including oil, natural gas, and certain minerals.
- The LOSC allows a State to conduct economic activities for a distance of 200 nautical
miles from the baseline, or the continental margin where it extends beyond 200 nautical
miles. A coastal State has sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction over its continental
shelf for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources, as well as for
other purposes specified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The natural
resources of the continental shelf consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of
the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that
is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the
seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or
subsoil.

- In the Exclusive Economic Zone, a coastal State has sovereign rights for the purpose of
exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing natural resources, whether living or
nonliving, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other
activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the
production of energy from the water, currents, and winds. Jurisdiction as provided for in
international law with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands,
installations, and structures, marine scientific research, and the protection and
 preservation of the marine environment, and (c) other rights and duties provided for
under international law.

3. What is the contiguous zone, and what can be allowed activities of states with jurisdiction over
that zone?
- Each coastal State may claim a contiguous zone adjacent to and beyond its territorial sea that
extends seaward up to 24 nm from its baselines. In its contiguous zone, a coastal State may exercise the
control necessary to prevent the infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and
regulations within its territory or territorial sea, and punish infringement of those laws and regulations
committed within its territory or territorial sea. Additionally, in order to control trafficking in
archaeological and historical objects found at sea, a coastal State may presume that their removal from the
seabed of the contiguous zone without its consent is unlawful.

3. Summarize the facts, issue/s, decisions, and basic International Law Principles related to
Waters that were mentioned in the South China Sea Arbitration, 2013-19, July. 12, 2016.

FACTS: On 22 January 2013, the Philippines instituted arbitral proceedings against

China in a dispute concerning their respective “maritime entitlements” and the legality of
Chinese activities in the South China Sea. In response, by a diplomatic note dated 19
February 2013 addressed to the Philippines, China expressed its rejection of the
arbitration. In China’s view, the Arbitral Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in the case
because China’s acceptance of dispute settlement under the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS] – the basis put forward by the Philippines – was
limited and excluded sea boundary delimitations and the determination of historic titles.
Since then, China has continuously refused either to accept or to participate in the arbitral
proceedings initiated by the Philippines. The tribunal, however, did not see this as an
obstacle: on 29 October 2015, it delivered its first award finding that it had jurisdiction,
and, on 12 July 2016, its award decided on the merits of the dispute.

ISSUES
The arbitration is related to disputes between the Parties regarding the legal basis of
maritime rights and entitlements, the status of certain geographic features, and the
lawfulness of certain actions taken by China in the South China Sea; in particular, the
following four issues, as raised by the Philippines:
1. To resolve a dispute between the parties regarding the source of maritime rights and
entitlements in the South China Sea;
2. To resolve a dispute between the parties concerning the entitlements to maritime
zones that would be generated under the Convention by Scarborough Shoal and
certain maritime features in the Spratly Islands that are claimed by both the parties;
3. To resolve a series of disputes concerning the lawfulness of China’s actions in the
South China Sea, vis-à-vis interfering with Philippine’s rights, failing to protect and
preserve the marine environment, and inflicting harm on the marine environment
(through land reclamation and construction of artificial islands);
 4. To find that China has aggravated and extended the disputes between the Parties by
restricting access to a detachment of Philippines Marines stationed at Second Thomas
Shoal.
5. WON China breached the provisions of UNCLOS, by temporarily prohibiting fishing
in areas of the South China Sea falling within the Philippines’ EEZ

HELD: The tribunal’s ruling is certainly a legal victory for the Philippines over China as the judges
agreed unanimously on almost all the questions submitted by the Philippines, including a declaration from
the tribunal that China is obliged to comply with UNCLOS and that the award is legally binding on
China. There is no enforcement mechanism as such under UNCLOS if China fails to comply with the
tribunal’s decision, but the Philippines could either resort to diplomatic ways (bilateral or multilateral
negotiations within the framework of international organizations) or have recourse to further arbitration
under UNCLOS. Moreover, other states and non-state actors could take further actions (i.e. economic
sanctions) to put pressure on Beijing to shift its behavior. But, beyond China’s non-compliance attitude,
the award has value for the states bordering the South China Sea and the rest of the international
community for two reasons: (a) the tribunal’s ruling clarified the respective rights and obligations of both
China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, thereby facilitating their further relations, and (b) the
Tribunal’s findings might have an impact on policy considerations and decision-making of other states as
it clarified important legal issues in UNCLOS.
The Tribunal, assisted by three independent experts on coral reef biology, expert briefs, and
satellite imagery, found that China was in breach of the Convention for failing to stop the fishing vessels
from engaging in harmful harvesting practices and for its island-building activities. The Tribunal further
opined that China’s construction on Mischief Reef, without authorization from the Philippines was in
violation of the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and a
breach of the Convention.

The next consideration before the Tribunal was the demeanor of China’s law enforcement vessels
at Scarborough Shoal and the lawfulness of these actions. The Philippines also raised the issue under the
relevant provisions of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea,
1972 (COLREGS). The Tribunal found that China, through the actions of its law enforcement vessels,
endangered Philippine vessels and personnel and created a serious risk of collision and found China in
breach of Article 94 of the Convention.

Furthermore, with respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the
South China Sea, the tribunal found that China breached UNCLOS since it failed to prevent fishermen
from Chinese-flagged vessels from harvesting (a) endangered species on a significant scale and (b) in
such a manner as to destroy the coral reef ecosystem. Furthermore, the tribunal held that China’s land
reclamation and construction of artificial islands, installations, and structures in the Spratly Islands caused
severe, irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem.