Back चीन बनाम फिलिपींस Hindi Filipina v. Tiongkok ID 南シナ海判決 Japanese 필리핀 대 중국 Korean Filipina v. China Malay Pilipinas v. Tsina Tagalog Philippines kiện Trung Quốc về Tranh chấp chủ quyền Biển Đông Vietnamese 南海仲裁案 Chinese Hui-li̍p-pin tùi Tiong-kok ZH-MIN-NAN 南海仲裁案 ZH-YUE

South China Sea Arbitration

The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China
Registered with the Permanent Court of Arbitration
CourtAn arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Full case nameAn Arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China
Decided12 July 2016
Citation(s)PCA Case No. 2013-19
Transcript(s)https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
Ruling
  • China's historic rights claims over maritime areas inside the "nine-dash line" have no lawful effect if they exceed what is entitled to under UNCLOS
  • There was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within "nine-dash line"
  • UNCLOS does not provide for a group of islands such as the Spratly Islands to generate maritime zones collectively as a unit
  • China had breached its obligations under the convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and Article 94 of UNCLOS concerning maritime safety
  • China violated its obligations to refrain from aggravating or extending the parties disputes during the pendency of the settlement process
Court membership
Judges sittingPresiding Arbitrator:
Thomas A. Mensah
Members:
Jean-Pierre Cot
Rüdiger Wolfrum
Alfred H. Soons
Stanisław Pawlak

The South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China, PCA case number 2013–19)[1] was an arbitration case brought by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China (PRC) under Annex VII (subject to Part XV) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, ratified by the Philippines in 1984, by the PRC in 1996, opted out from Section 2 of Part XV by China in 2006[2]) concerning certain issues in the South China Sea, including the nine-dash line introduced by the mainland-based Republic of China since as early as 1947.[3][4][5] A tribunal of arbitrators appointed the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) as the registry for the proceedings.[6]

On 19 February 2013, China declared that it would not participate in the arbitration.[7] On 7 December 2014, it published a white paper to elaborate its position that, among other points, the tribunal lacks jurisdiction.[8][9] In accordance with Article 3 of Annex VII of UNCLOS, the Philippines appointed 1 of the 5 arbitrators, while China did not appoint any.[11] On 29 October 2015, the tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider seven of the Philippines' submissions, subject to certain conditions, and postponed the consideration of its jurisdiction on the other eight submissions to the merits phase.[12][13][14]

On 12 July 2016, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines on most of its submissions. It clarified that while it would not "rule on any question of sovereignty ... and would not delimit any maritime boundary", China's historic rights claims over maritime areas (as opposed to land masses and territorial waters) within the "nine-dash line" have no lawful effect unless entitled to under UNCLOS.[15][16][17][18] China has rejected the ruling, as has Taiwan.[19][20] Eight governments have called for the ruling to be respected, 35 issued generally positive statements noting the ruling but not called for compliance, and eight rejected it.[21] The United Nations does not hold any position on the case or on the disputed claims."[22]

  1. ^ "The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China)". Archived from the original on 23 December 2020. Retrieved 25 December 2020.
  2. ^ https://www.itlos.org/en/main/jurisdiction/declarations-of-states-parties/declarations-made-by-states-parties-under-article-298/#:~:text=The%20Government%20of%20the%20People's%20Republic%20of%20China%20does%20not,Article%20298%20of%20the%20Convention. The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
  3. ^ Wu, Shicun (2013). Solving Disputes for Regional Cooperation and Development in the South China Sea: A Chinese Perspective. Chandos Asian Studies Series. Elsevier Reed. p. 79 "History of the U-shaped line". ISBN 978-1780633558. Archived from the original on 7 April 2023. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
  4. ^ "Chronological lists of ratifications of, accessions and successions to the Convention and the related Agreements". United Nations. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations. 3 September 2020. Archived from the original on 14 April 2009. Retrieved 12 February 2021.
  5. ^ "Seventh Press Release 29102015". Permanent Court of Arbitration. 29 October 2015. Archived from the original on 10 March 2022. Retrieved 30 January 2022.
  6. ^ "First Press Release". Permanent Court of Arbitration. 27 August 2013. Archived from the original on 10 March 2022. Retrieved 30 January 2022.
  7. ^ "PHL PRC China Note Verbale". Archived from the original on 19 September 2016. Retrieved 27 August 2016.
  8. ^ Chinese Society of International Law. The Tribunal's Award in the "South China Sea Arbitration" Initiated by the Philippines Is Null and Void (Report). Archived from the original on 22 August 2016. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  9. ^ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines (Report). Archived from the original on 7 June 2016. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  10. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference PCA Award was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ PCA Award, Section II(B), p. 12.[10]
  12. ^ PCA Award, Section IV(B)(6), p. 63.[10]
  13. ^ "Philippines asks tribunal to invalidate China's sea claims". The Philippine Star. Associated Press. 2015. Archived from the original on 12 October 2016. Retrieved 17 July 2016.
  14. ^ "World tribunal to hear South China Sea case". Bangkok Post. 30 October 2015. Archived from the original on 7 April 2023. Retrieved 3 August 2022.
  15. ^ PCA Award, Section V(F)(d)(264, 266, 267), p. 113.[10]
  16. ^ PCA Award, Section V(F)(d)(278), p. 117.[10]
  17. ^ "Eleventh Press Release 12072016 (English)". Permanent Court of Arbitration. 7 December 2016. Archived from the original on 20 January 2022. Retrieved 30 January 2022.
  18. ^ Perlez, Jane (12 July 2016). "Tribunal Rejects Beijing's Claims in South China Sea". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 13 July 2016. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
  19. ^ Phillips, Tom; Holmes, Oliver; Bowcott, Owen (12 July 2016). "Beijing rejects tribunal's ruling in South China Sea case". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 12 July 2016. Retrieved 26 July 2016.
  20. ^ Zannia, Neyla (14 July 2016). "Taiwan rejects ruling on South China Sea with Taiping Island defined as 'rocks'". The Online Citizen. Archived from the original on 15 July 2016. Retrieved 26 July 2016.
  21. ^ "Arbitration Support Tracker | Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative". Center for Strategic and International Studies. Archived from the original on 30 January 2022.
  22. ^ "Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General". United Nations. 12 July 2016. Archived from the original on 12 November 2020. Retrieved 27 October 2020.

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search