We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
1 The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China, PCA Case No. 2013-19, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ¶ 413 (Oct. 29, 2015), https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1506 [hereinafter Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility].
2 Id. ¶ 2.
3 Id. ¶ 26.
4 See, e.g., 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 (Dec. 7, 2014).
5 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, supra note 1, ¶ 106.
6 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea art. 9, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3, 21 I.L.M. 1261.
7 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, supra note 1, ¶ 117.
8 Id. ¶¶ 118–23.
9 Id. ¶ 126.
10 Id. ¶¶ 128–29.
11 Id. ¶ 151.
12 Id. ¶ 152.
13 Id.
14 Id. ¶ 153.
15 Id.
16 Id. ¶¶ 155–57.
17 Id. ¶ 161.
18 Id. ¶ 163.
19 Id.
20 Id. ¶¶ 212–29.
21 Id. ¶¶ 241–51.
22 Id. ¶ 244.
23 Id. ¶ 246.
24 Id. ¶¶ 265–69, 281–89.
25 Id. ¶ 265.
26 Id. ¶ 282.
27 Id. ¶¶ 299–302.
28 Id. ¶¶ 307–10.
29 Id. ¶¶ 317–21.
30 Id. ¶ 332.
31 Id. ¶ 333.
32 Id. ¶¶ 332–43.
33 Id. ¶ 343.
34 Id. ¶¶ 345–46.
35 Id. ¶ 350.
36 Id. ¶¶ 392–96.
37 Id. ¶¶ 397–413.
38 Id. ¶ 177.
39 Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals 266 (2006).
40 Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, 1925 P.C.I.J. (Ser A) No. 6, 18 (Aug. 25).
41 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, supra note 1, ¶ 393.
42 Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. U.K.), ¶ 220 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 2015), http://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/MU-UK%2020150318%20Award.pdf.
43 Id. ¶ 221.
44 Jennings, Robert, Universal International Law in a Multicultural World, in Collected Essays of Sir Robert Jennings 341 (Bos, Maarten and Brownlie, Ian eds., 1998)Google Scholar.
* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (visited August 1, 2016), http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1506.
1 Notification and Statement of Claim of the Republic of the Philippines, 22 January 2013 (hereinafter “Notification and Statement of Claim”), para. 6 (Annex 1).
2 Notification and Statement of Claim, para. 7.
3 Note Verbale from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila to the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. (13) PG-039, 19 February 2013 (Annex 3).
4 “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Remarks on the Release of the Transcript of the Oral Hearing on Jurisdiction by the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal Established at the Request of the Philippines” 24 August 2015, published at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2535_665405/t1290752.shtml.
5 Notification and Amended Statement of Claim, pp. 17–19.
6 Memorial, para. 7.157.
7 Memorial, pp. 271–72.
8 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 3), p. 80.
9 China’s Position Paper, para. 2; see also Letter from the Chinese Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, addressed to the individual members of the Tribunal, 6 February 2015; Letter from the Chinese Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, addressed to the individual members of the Tribunal, 1 July 2015.
10 Procedural Order No. 4, p. 5.
11 Procedural Order No. 4, para 1.1.
12 China’s Position Paper, para. 2.
13 1833 UNTS 3 (opened for signature 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994).
14 Upon signing the Convention on 10 December 1982, the Philippines issued an “Understanding” which was confirmed upon ratification. Among other things, the Understanding stated: “The agreement of the Republic of the Philippines to the submission for peaceful resolution, under any of the procedures provided in the Convention, of disputes under article 298 shall not be considered as a derogation of Philippines sovereignty.” The Philippines made no declaration upon ratification on 8 May 1984.
15 When China ratified the Convention on 7 June 1996, it issued a statement, which included the following:
1. In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and the continental shelf.
2. The People’s Republic of China will effect, through consultations, the delimitation of the boundary of the maritime jurisdiction with the States with coasts opposite or adjacent to China respectively on the basis of international law and in accordance with the principle of equitability.
3. The People’s Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands as listed in article 2 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, which was promulgated on 25 February 1992.
16 On 25 August 2006, China made the following Declaration under Article 298 of the Convention (hereinafter “China’s 2006 Declaration”):
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)-(c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
17 Article 287(1) provides: “When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention: (a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI; (b) the International Court of Justice; (c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII; (d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.” Article 287(3) provides: “A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.”
18 Convention, Article 288(4). As to Article 288, see China’s Position Paper, para. 83.
19 Memorial, paras. 1.21, 7.39.
20 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14 at p. 24, para. 28 (Annex LA-15); Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, ITLOS Reports 2013, p. 230 at p. 242, para. 51 (Annex LA-45); Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Jurisdiction, Award of 26 November 2014, para. 60 (Annex LA-180); Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Merits, Award of 14 August 2015, para. 10.
21 Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, ITLOS Reports 2013, p. 230 at p. 243, para. 56 (Annex LA-45).
22 Memorial, para. 7.42.
23 Memorial, para. 1.23.
24 Letter from the Philippines to the Tribunal (31 July 2013), commenting on draft Rules of Procedure.
25 Procedural Order No. 4, 21 April 2015, p. 5, citing as examples Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, ITLOS Reports 2013, p. 230 at p. 243, para. 54 (Annex LA-45); Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Jurisdiction, Award of 26 November 2014, para. 44 (Annex LA-180); Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1974, p. 3 (Annex LA-8); Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1974, p. 253 (Annex LA-7); Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1978, p. 3 (Annex LA-9).
26 China’s Position Paper, paras. 3, 29, 85, 86; see also “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Remarks on the Release of the Transcript of the Oral Hearing on Jurisdiction by the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal Established at the Request of the Philippines” 24 August 2015, published at www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2535_665405/t1290752.shtml (“The Philippines’ unilateral submission of the relevant disputes to compulsory arbitration . . . initiation of arbitration . . . constitutes . . . an abuse of international legal procedure. . . .”).
27 Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, Award of 11 April 2006, PCA Award Series at pp. 96–97, para. 208, RIAA Vol. XXVIII, p. 147 at pp. 207–08, para. 208 (Annex LA-54).
28 At the 61st Plenary Meeting of the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, 6 April 1976, a concern was raised that, in the absence of a provision such as Article 294, “the acceptance of compulsory third-party settlement would mean that the coastal State might be subjected to constant harassment by having to appear before international tribunals at considerable loss of money and time.” Article 294 can be understood as a safeguard against such harassment arising from frivolous or clearly unfounded claims. See Intervention of the representative of Kenya, Mr. Njenga, at the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on 6 April 1976, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Record, Vol. V, para. 49.
29 China’s Position Paper, para. 4.
30 China’s Position Paper, para. 3.
31 China’s Position Paper, para. 29.
32 China’s Position Paper, para. 8.
33 China’s Position Paper, para. 10.
34 China’s Position Paper, para. 11.
35 China’s Position Paper, para. 12.
36 China’s Position Paper, para. 13.
37 China’s Position Paper, para. 16.
38 China’s Position Paper, para. 17.
39 China’s Position Paper, para. 25.
40 China’s Position Paper, para. 22.
41 China’s Position Paper, para. 26.
42 China’s Position Paper, para. 27.
43 China’s Position Paper, para. 27.
44 China’s Position Paper, para. 75.
45 China’s Position Paper, para. 66.
46 China’s Position Paper, paras. 66, 67.
47 China’s Position Paper, para. 68.
48 China’s Position Paper, para. 69.
49 China’s Position Paper, para. 69.
50 China’s Position Paper, para. 69.
51 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), p. 27.
52 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), p. 27.
53 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.8.
54 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), pp. 61–62.
55 Written Responses to the Tribunal’s 13 July 2015 Questions, paras. III.7-III.12, citing Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 659 at p. 702, para. 135 (Annex LA-177); Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 40 at pp. 98–99, paras. 191, 196 (Annex LA-26); Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 624 at pp. 642– 45, paras. 28-38 (Annex LA-35); Dubai-Sharjah Border Arbitration, Award of 19 October 1981, 91 ILR p. 543 at pp. 673–77 (Annex LA-231).
56 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1980, p. 3 at pp. 19-20, para. 36 (Annex LA-175).
57 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392 at pp. 439-40, paras. 105-106 (Annex LA-13).
58 Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), Judgment of 5 December 2011, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 644 at p. 659, para. 37 (Annex LA-221).
59 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), p. 69.
60 Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Award of 18 March 2015 (Annex LA-225).
61 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), pp. 76–77.
62 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.13 [emphasis in original].
63 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), p. 64.
64 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), p. 65.
65 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.15.
66 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), p. 89.
67 Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary (Bangladesh v. India), Award of 7 July 2014, para. 191 (Annex LA-179); Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), p. 95.
68 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), p. 98.
69 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), p. 98.
70 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 40.
71 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 40.
72 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 42.
73 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 42.
74 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 44.
75 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment of 14 March 2012, ITLOS Reports 2012, p. 4 at p. 99, paras. 376–77 (Annex LA-43); Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 624 at p. 688, para. 169 (Annex LA-35).
76 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 46.
77 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 133.
78 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 3), pp. 5–6.
79 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. 000228), pp. 3-4 (5 April 2011) (Annex 200).
80 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/17/2009 (7 May 2009) (Annex 191); Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-064-2011-S, p. 2, para. 8 (21 June 2011) (Annex 72); Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu’s Regular Press Conference on September 15, 2011, p. 2 (16 September 2011) (Annex 113); China Asserts Sea Claim with Politics and Ships, NY Times, p. 3 (11 August 2012) (Annex 320); Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei’s Statement Regarding Comments by an Official of the United States Departmentof Stateon the South China Sea (8 February 2014) (Annex 131).
81 Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, Record of Proceedings: 10th Philippines-China Foreign Ministry Consultations (30 July 1998) (Annex 184); Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, Notes on the 18th Philippines-China Foreign Ministry Consultations, p. 12, para. 52 (19 October 2012) (Annex 85); Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China, Chinese Foreign Ministry Statement Regarding Huangyandao (22 May 1997) (Annex 106); Memorandum from Rodolfo C. Severino, Undersecretary, Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, to the President of the Republic of the Philippines, p. 2 (27 May 1997) (Annex 25).
82 Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 983577, p. 2 (5 November 1998) (Annex 185); Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 110885, p. 1 (4 April 2011) (Annex 199).
83 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/8/2011, p. 2 (14 April 2011) (Annex 201); Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-071-2014-S (10 March 2014) (Annex 100); Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-070-2014-S, para. 4 (7 March 2014) (Annex 98).
84 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 139.
85 Philippine-China Bilateral Consultations: Summary of Proceedings, p. 7 (20–21 March 1995) (Annex 175); Memorandum from Assistant Secretary, Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, to Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (11 March 2014) (Annex 101).
86 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 139.
87 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/8/2011, p. 2 (14 April 2011) (Annex 201).
88 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 140.
89 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/8/2011, p. 2 (14 April 2011) (Annex 201).
90 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 140.
91 Memorandum from Rafael E. Seguis, Undersecretary for Special and Ocean Concerns, Department of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the Philippines, to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, p. 1 (30 July 2010) (Annex 63); Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu’s Regular Press Conference on September 15, 2011, p. 2 (16 September 2011) (Annex 113); Note Verbale from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China to the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, No. (15)PG-229 (6 July 2015) (Annex 580).
92 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 141.
93 Memorandum from the Ambassador of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, p. 2 (10 April 1995) (Annex 21).
94 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 141.
95 Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-110-2012-S, p. 5 (26 July 2012) (Annex 84).
96 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 142.
97 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 99.
98 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 143.
99 Memorandum from Ambassador of the Republic of Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-76-98-S (6 November 1998) (Annex 33).
100 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 144; Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 12-1222, p. 1 (30 April 2012) (Annex 209).
101 Note Verbale from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila to the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. (12) PG-239, p. 1 (25 May 2012) (Annex 211).
102 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 144.
103 Memorandum from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the President of the Republic of the Philippines (23 April 2013) (Annex 93); Letter from the Virgilio A. Hernandez, Major General, Armed Forces of the Philippines, to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs of Republic of the Philippines (10 March 2014) (Annex 99).
104 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Jurisdiction, Judgment of 30 August 1924, PCIJ Series A, No. 2, p. 6 at p. 11 (Annex LA-57).
105 Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1950, p. 65 at p. 74 (Annex LA-1).
106 Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1950, p. 65 at p. 74 (Annex LA-1).
107 South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1962, p. 319 at p. 328 (Annex LA-6).
108 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 70 at pp. 84-85, para. 30 (Annex LA-34).
109 Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1974, p. 457 at p. 466, para. 30; see also Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case, Order of 22 September 1995, ICJ Reports 1995, p. 288 at p. 304, para. 55.
110 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 432 at p. 448, para. 30 (Annex LA-23).
111 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 432 at p. 449, para. 31 (Annex LA-23).
112 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 432 at p. 449, para. 32 (Annex LA-23); see also Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Award of 18 March 2015, para. 208 (Annex LA-225).
113 Memorial, para. 1.16; Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.8.
114 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1980, p. 3 at pp. 19–20, para. 36 (Annex LA-175).
115 Memorial, para. 1.16; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), pp. 76-77, 99.
116 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 1), p. 98.
117 Memorial, para. 1.34.
118 China’s Position Paper, para. 19.
119 South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1962, p. 319 at p. 328.
120 See, e.g., Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-064-2011-S, p. 6, para. 8 (21 June 2011) (Annex 72); Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu’s Regular Press Conference on September 15, 2011, p. 2 (16 September 2011) (Annex 113).
121 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/17/2009 (7 May 2009) (Annex 191); Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary- General of the United Nations, No. CML/18/2009 (7 May 2009) (Annex 192). The Tribunal’s use of the term “nine-dash line” is not to be understood as recognizing any particular nomenclature or map as correct or authoritative. The Tribunal observes that different terms have been used at different times and by different entities to refer to this line. For example, China refers to “China’s dotted line in the South China Sea” (China’s Position Paper, para. 8); Viet Nam refers to the “nine-dash line” (Viet Nam’s Statement, para. 4(i)); Indonesia has referred to the “so called ‘nine-dotted-lines map’ (Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Indonesia to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. 480/POL-703/VII/10, pp. 1–2 (8 July 2010) (Annex 197); and some commentators have referred to it as the “Cow’s Tongue” and “U-Shaped Line.” Further, the Tribunal observes that the number of dashes varies, depending on the date and version of the map consulted. For example, there were eleven dashes in the 1947 Atlas Map “Showing the Location of the Various Islands in the South China Sea (Nanhai Zhu Dao Wei Zhi Tu) (Memorial, Figure 4.5, Annex M20) and those in the 1950s (Annexes M1-M3) . Nine dashes appeared in subsequent maps, including that appended to the 2009 Notes Verbales to the UN Secretary-General (Memorial Figure 1.1, Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/17/2009 (7 May 2009) (Annex 191); Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/18/2009 (7 May 2009) (Annex 192)). Ten dashes appear in the more recent 2013 “Map of the People’s Republic of China” produced by China Cartographic Publishing House (Annex M19).
122 See, e.g., Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the Secretary- General of the United Nations, No. CML/8/2011, p. 2 (14 April 2011) (Annex 201).
123 Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 275 at p. 315, para. 89 (Annex LA-25).
124 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 70 at pp. 84-85, para. 30 (Annex LA-34).
125 Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1988, p. 12 at p. 28, para. 38.
126 Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 275 at pp. 316–17, para. 93 (Annex LA-25).
127 Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 275 at pp. 316–17, para. 93 (Annex LA-25).
128 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/17/2009 (7 May 2009) (Annex 191); Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/18/2009 (7 May 2009) (Annex 192).
129 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. 000228 (5 April 2011) (Annex 200).
130 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/8/2011 (14 April 2011) (Annex 201).
131 Memorial, para. 4.96(2).
132 See, e.g., Memorandum from Rodolfo C. Severino, Undersecretary, Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, to the President of the Republic of the Philippines (27 May 1997) (Annex 25).
133 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/8/2011, p. 2 (14 April 2011) (Annex 201).
134 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. 000228 (5 April 2011) (Annex 200).
135 Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 110885 (4 April 2011) (Annex 199).
136 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 432 at p. 449, para. 32 (Annex LA-23).
137 Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 275 at pp. 316 –17, para. 93 (Annex LA-25).
138 See, e.g., Note Verbale from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila to the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. (10)PG-047 (22 February 2010) (Annex 195); Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 110526 (2 March 2011) (Annex 198); Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 110885 (4 April 2011) (Annex 199); Note Verbale from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila to the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. (11)PG-202 (7 July 2011) (Annex 202).
139 See, for instance, the extensive correspondence collected at the Memorial, para. 3.40 n. 211.
140 See, e.g., Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, PhilippineChina Bilateral Consultations: Summary of Proceedings (20-21 March 1995) (Annex 175); Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Statement: Philippine-China Experts Group Meeting on Confidence Building Measures, (23 March 1995) (Annex 178); Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, Transcript of Proceedings: RP-PRC Bilateral Talks (9 August 1995) (Annex 179); Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Agreed Minutes on the First Philippines-China Bilateral Consultations on the South China Sea Issue (10 August 1995) (Annex 180); Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 983577 (5 November 1998) (Annex 185).
141 See, e.g., Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 12–1222, p. 1 (30 April 2012) (Annex 209); Note Verbale from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila to the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. (12) PG-239, p. 1, (25 May 2012) (Annex 211).
142 See, e.g., Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 13-1585 (9 May 2013) (Annex 217); Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 13–1882, 10 June 2013 (Annex 219); Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 140711 (11 March 2014) (Annex 221); Memorandum from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the President of the Republic of the Philippines (23 April 2013) (Annex 93).
143 See, e.g., Memorandum from Assistant Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the Philippines, to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (23 March 1998) (Annex 29); Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 2000100 (14 January 2000) (Annex 186); Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republicofthe Philippines, No.ZPE-09-2001-S(17 March 2001) (Annex 47); Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 12-0894 (11 April 2012) (Annex 205).
144 Memorial, paras. 6.85– 6.89.
145 Memorial, paras. 6.80, 6.89.
146 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 11.
147 Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 11.3–11.5; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 97; see also Memorial, para. 6.82, on the relevance of the CBD under Article 293(1) of the Convention.
148 MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, Separate Opinion of Judge Wolfrum, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 131.
149 MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 95 at p. 106, paras. 48-52 (Annex LA-39); see also Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 280 at p. 294, para. 55 (Annex LA-37).
150 In its Position Paper, China simply pointed out that “[t]he South China Sea issue involves a number of countries, and it is no easy task to solve it.” China’s Position Paper, para. 47. China also refers to its negotiated boundaries with Viet Nam as an example of successful peaceful negotiations between China and its neighbours.
151 Memorial, paras. 5.115–5.137; Letter from the Philippines to the Tribunal (26 January 2015); Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 25.1–25.4; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 3), pp. 120–25.
152 Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom, and United States), Preliminary Question, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1954, p. 19 at p. 32 (Annex LA-3); East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1995, p. 90 (Annex LA-22); Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, Award of 5 February 2001, 119 ILR p. 566 (Annex LA-52).
153 Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom, and United States), Preliminary Question, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1954, p. 19 at p. 32 (Annex LA-3); East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1995, p. 90 at p. 104-105, para. 34 (Annex LA-22); Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, Award of 5 February 2001, 119 ILR p. 566 at pp. 588, 596-97, paras. 11.8, 12.17 (Annex LA-52).
154 See, e.g., Letter from Viet Nam to the Tribunal (8 April 2014) and Viet Nam’s Statement (Annex 468), both discussed below.
155 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/17/2009 (7 May 2009) (Annex 191); Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary- General of the United Nations, No. CML/18/2009 (7 May 2009) (Annex 191); Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Partial Submission in Respect of Vietnam’s Extended Continental Shelf: North Area (April 2009) (Annex 222); Malaysia and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, Joint Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, in Respect of the Southern Part of the South China Sea (6 May 2009) (Annex 223).
156 Letter from Viet Nam to the Tribunal (8 April 2014).
157 Viet Nam’s Statement, p. 1 (Annex 468).
158 Viet Nam’s Statement, p. 1 (Annex 468).
159 Viet Nam’s Statement, pp. 1–2 (Annex 468).
160 Viet Nam’s Statement, p. 3 (Annex 468).
161 Viet Nam’s Statement, p. 5 (Annex 468).
162 Viet Nam’s Statement, pp. 5–6 (Annex 468).
163 Viet Nam’s Statement, p. 7 (Annex 468).
164 Letter from the Tribunal to the Parties (11 December 2014).
165 Philippines’ Letter to Tribunal (26 January 2015), citing Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 575 at p. 607, paras. 93–94.
166 Letter from the Chinese Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, addressed to the individual members of the Tribunal, 6 February 2015, para. 5.
167 Letter from the Tribunal to the Vietnamese Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands (17 February 2015).
168 China’s Position Paper, paras. 3, 30–44; see also Note Verbale from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila to the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. (13) PG-039, p. 1 (19 February 2013) (Annex 3).
169 China’s Position Paper, para. 45.
170 See Memorial, para. 7.77; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 9.
171 China’s Position Paper, paras. 3, 42.
172 China’s Position Paper, paras. 41, 44.
173 DOC, preamble (Annex 144).
174 China’s Position Paper, para. 38.
175 China’s Position Paper, para. 38 (citing Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43 at p. 111, para. 162 (Annex LA-176).
176 China’s Position Paper, para. 40, citing Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 4 August 2000, RIAA, Vol. XXIII, p. 1 at pp. 43– 44, para. 57 (Annex LA-50).
177 China’s Position Paper, paras. 51-53, responding to Memorial, paras. 7.74 –7.77.
178 China’s Position Paper, para. 3.
179 China’s Position Paper, paras. 54-56.
180 Memorial, paras. 7.50-7.58; Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 26.27-26.39; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 7-11.
181 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 9.
182 Memorial, paras. 7.54–7.55; Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 26.30-26.32; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 10
183 Memorial, para. 7.57; Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.34 –26.38; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 10.
184 Memorial, para. 7.63; Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.47.
185 Memorial, para. 7.63; Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.53.
186 Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 4 August 2000, RIAA, Vol. XXIII, p. 1 at pp 42–43, para. 55 (Annex LA-50); Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 280 at p. 295, para. 60 (Annex LA-37); Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 October 2003, ITLOS Reports 2003, p. 10 at p. 19, para. 47 (Annex LA-41) ; MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 95 at p. 107, para. 60 (Annex LA-39) ; Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, ITLOS Reports 2013, p. 230 at p. 247, para. 76 (Annex LA-45); ARA Libertad (Republic of Argentina v. Ghana), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 December 2012, ITLOS Reports 2012, p. 326 at p. 346, para. 71 (Annex LA-44).
187 Memorial, paras. 7.64–7.72; Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 26.42-26.45; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 13-17.
188 Memorial, paras. 7.68–7.70; Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 26.41; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr., (Day 2), pp. 116-118 (citing academic commentary that has favoured a similar approach).
189 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.40; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2).
190 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 1.
191 Memorial, para. 7.72.
192 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 17; Memorial, para. 7.49; Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.25.
193 Memorial, paras. 7.74 –7.76, citing Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1971, p. 16 at p. 46, para. 91 (Annex LA-6); Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 17.
194 Memorial, Chapters 3 and 6, paras. 7.75-7.76; Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 26.55-26.57; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 17.
195 Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 26.55-26.56 (responding to China’s Position Paper, paras. 51-53); Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 3), p. 70 (responding to Tribunal question on ‘unclean hands’); and Philippines’ Written Response to Tribunal Hearing Questions, 23 July 2015, paras. II.1–II.8.
196 China’s Position Paper, para. 38; Memorial, para. 7.51, Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 26.28-26.29; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 12; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1978, p. 3 at p. 39, para. 96 (Annex LA-9), Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Qatar v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1994, p. 112 at pp. 120-22, paras. 23-29 (Annex LA-21); Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 303 at pp. 427, 429, paras. 258, 262-263 (Annex LA —27).
197 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1978, p. 3 at p. 39, para. 96 (Annex LA-9), Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Qatar v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1994, p. 112 at pp. 120-22, paras. 23-29 (the Court found an exchange of letters and minutes of consultations between the parties’ foreign ministers to constitute agreements to refer the dispute to the Court) (Annex LA-21); Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 303 at pp. 427, 429, paras. 258, 262-263 (the Court found a Declaration to constitute an international agreement, having considered subsequent conduct) (Annex LA-27); see also Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 2(1)(a).
198 China’s Position Paper, para. 38, citing Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43 at pp. 111-12, paras. 162-63 (Annex LA-176).
199 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43 at pp. 111-13, paras. 162, 164-65 (Annex LA-176).
200 Memo of China’s Position Regarding the Latest Draft Code of Conduct by the ASEAN, para. 2 (18 December 1999) (Annex 471). With respect to the use of “Code” and “Declaration” in the drafting history of the instrument, the Tribunal notes that the DOC originated out of the negotiations on a “Code of Conduct”, stemming from a proposal by the Chinese negotiators in October 1999 for a text that would provide an alternative to what they considered to be an unacceptable draft Code. The Chinese alternative, although originally being referred to as a “Code”, was a precursor to what would in 2002 be termed a “Declaration”. This Declaration provided a means to move past a political impasse between the positions reflected in the Chinese alternative proposal, and a contemporaneous ASEAN proposal, thus enabling negotiations on an eventual Code of Conduct to continue in light of the consensus reflected in the Declaration. For this reason, the early documentation referring to the Chinese proposal refers to it as the “Code” rather than the “Declaration”. See, e.g., Memo of China’s Position Regarding the Latest Draft Code of Conduct by the ASEAN, paras. 1, 2 (18 December 1999) (Annex 471); Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Spokesperson’s Comment on China-Asean Consultation, p. 1 (30 August 2000) (Annex 491).
201 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Spokesperson’s Comment on China-Asean Consultation, p. 1 (30 August 2000) (Annex 491).
202 Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Report of the Third Meeting of the Working Group of ASEAN-China Senior Official Consultations on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, para. 3 (11 October 2000) (Annex 498).
203 For Mr. Severino’s early role in negotiations, see Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Agreed Minutes on the First Philippines-China Bilateral Consultations on the South China Sea Issue (10 August 1995) (Annex 180); Rodolfo Severino, ASEAN and the South China Sea, 6(2) Security Challenges 45 (2010) (Annex 293).
204 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Remarks by H.E. Li Keqiang, Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, at the 16th ASEAN-China Summit, p. 2 (16 October 2013) (Annex 128). The Tribunal notes that none of the signatory States to the DOC have ever submitted the DOC to the UN Secretariat for registration and publication.
205 See Section VII.C below.
206 Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 4 August 2000, RIAA, Vol. XXIII, p. 1 at pp. 42-43, para. 55 (Annex LA-50); Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 280 at p. 295, para. 60 (Annex LA-37) (holding “[a] State Party is not obliged to pursue procedures under Part XV, section 1 of the Convention when it concludes that the possibilities of settlement have been exhausted”); see also Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 October 2003, ITLOS Reports 2003, p. 10 at p. 19, para. 47 (Annex LA-41); MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 95 at p. 107 para. 60 (Annex LA-39); Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, ITLOS Reports 2013, p. 230 at p. 247, para. 76 (Annex LA-45); ARA Libertad (Republic of Argentina v. Ghana), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 December 2012, ITLOS Reports 2012, p. 326 at p. 346, para. 71 (Annex LA-44).
207 Article 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states: “Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaties to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein.” See Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 55 Official Journal of the European Union 47 (2012) (Annex LA-83), as cited in Memorial, para. 7.70.
208 This is a formula suggested in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary (hereinafter “Virginia Commentary”), Volume V 23–24 (Nordquist et al. eds., 1989) (Annex LA-148); see also Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 14–15.
209 Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 280 (Annex LA-37); MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 95 (Annex LA-39).
210 Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Separate Opinion of Justice Sir Kenneth Keith, RIAA, Vol. XXIII, p. 49 at pp. 53–57, paras. 17–30 (Annex LA-51).
211 Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 4 August 2000, RIAA, Vol. XXIII, p. 1 at p. 43, para. 57 (Annex LA-50).
212 Virginia Commentary, Vol. V, para. XV.4 (“[U]niformity in the interpretation of the Convention should be sought . . . [and] a few carefully defined exceptions should be allowed”).
213 Ibid.
214 UNConference onthe Law of the Sea III,Memorandum by the President of the Conference on Document A/CONF.62/WP.9, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.9/ADD.1,p.122, para. 6(31 March 1976) (Annex LA-106).
215 UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, 185th Meeting, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/PV.185, p. 14, para. 53 (26 January 1983) (Annex LA-116).
216 UN Conference on the Law of the Sea III, Memorandum by the President of the Conference on Document A/CONF.62/WP.9, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.9/ADD.1, p. 122, para. 6 (31 March 1976) (Annex LA-106).
217 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Agreed Minutes on the First Philippines-China Bilateral Consultations on the South China Sea Issue (10 August 1995) (Annex 180), cited in China’s Position Paper, para. 31.
218 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Statement: Philippine-China Experts Group Meeting on Confidence Building Measures, p. 2 (23 March 1999) (Annex 178), cited in China’s Position Paper, para 32.
219 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Statement: Framework of Bilateral Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century (16 May 2000) (Annex 505), cited in China’s Position Paper, para. 33; Supplemental Written Submission, para. 2.11.
220 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Statement: 3rd Philippines-China Experts’ Group Meeting on Confidence-Building Measures, Manila, 3–4 April 2001 (4 April 2001) (Annex 506), cited in China’s Position Paper, para. 34; Supplemental Written Submission, para. 2.11.
221 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Press Statement on the State Visit of H.E. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the People’s Republic of China, 1–3 September 2004 (3 September 2004) (Annex 188). Cited in China’s Position Paper, para. 36; Supplemental Written Submission, para. 2.11.
222 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Statement (1 September 2011) (Annex 507). Cited in China’s Position Paper, para. 37; Supplemental Written Submission, para. 2.11.
223 China’s Position Paper, para. 38.
224 China’s Position Paper, paras. 38, 43– 44.
225 China’s Position Paper, para. 40, citing Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 4 August 2000, RIAA, Vol. XXIII, p. 1 at pp. 43-44, para. 57.
226 China’s Position Paper, para. 40.
227 China’s Position Paper, para. 40.
228 Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 26.61–26.63; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 20.
229 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.63; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 22.
230 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.64. The Philippines points to cases in which the ICJ has found that the fact that negotiations are being actively pursued during the judicial proceedings does not, legally, present any obstacle to the exercise by the Court of its judicial function. See, e.g., Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392 (Annex LA-13); Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1978, p. 3 (Annex LA-9). The Philippines argues that “[i]f active negotiations are no impediment to the exercise of the judicial function, a fortiori failed or futile negotiations are not either.” Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.67.
231 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.61.
232 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 3), p. 35.
233 See Section VII.A.1.c above.
234 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Agreed Minutes on the First Philippines-China Bilateral Consultations on the South China Sea Issue (10 August 1995) (Annex 180).
235 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Statement: Framework of Bilateral Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century, para. 9 (16 May 2000) (Annex 505).
236 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Statement: 3rd Philippines-China Experts’ Group Meeting on Confidence-Building Measures, Manila, 3-4 April 2001, para. VIII (4 April 2001) (Annex 506).
237 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Agreed Minutes on the First Philippines-China Bilateral Consultations on the South China Sea Issue, para. 4 (10 August 1995) (Annex 180).
238 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Statement: Philippine-China Experts Group Meeting on Confidence Building Measures, para. 2 (23 March 1995) (Annex 178).
239 UN Conference onthe Lawofthe Sea III, Memorandum by the President of the Conference on document A/CONF.62/WP.9, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.9/ADD.1, p.122, para. 6(31 March 1976) (Annex LA-106).
240 China’s Position Paper, para. 40.
241 China’s Position Paper, para. 40.
242 Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan), Separate Opinion of Justice Sir Kenneth Keith, RIAA, Vol. XXIII, p. 49 at p. 56, para. 26 (Annex LA-51).
243 China’s Position Paper, paras. 40–41.
244 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 36–37.
245 Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Award of 18 March 2015, para. 435 (Annex LA-225).
246 Ibid., para. 438 (Annex LA-225).
247 Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 275 at p. 303, para. 57 (Annex LA-25).
248 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, 1025 UNTS 319 (opened for signature 24 February 1976, entered into force 15 July 1976) (hereinafter “Treaty of Amity”) (Annex LA-185).
249 China’s Position Paper, para. 54; DOC, para. 1.
250 Request for Further Argument, Question 2; see also Letter from the Tribunal to the Parties (23 June 2015), Issue C.
251 Tribunal Questions of 10 July 2015, Question 4 (a).
252 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 20.
253 Treaty of Amity, Article 16; see Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 2.2–2.3; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 20–21; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 3), p. 38.
254 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 3), p. 40.
255 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr., (Day 3), pp. 38-40, in response to Tribunal Questions of 10 July 2015, Question 4. The Philippines notes, in reference to Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 October 2003, ITLOS Reports 2003, p. 10 at p. 19, para. 47 (Annex LA-41), and Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary (Bangladesh v. India), Award of 7 July 2014 (Annex LA-179), that “[i]n neither case did the respondent state raise any objection based on the treaty, nor was there any prior resort to the High Council, which has never even been constituted in any event.”
256 Memorial, paras. 3.22–3.72; Supplemental Written Submission, para. 2.7.
257 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 2.6; UN Charter, Art. 33(1) (Annex LA-181); Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 21.
258 Convention on Biological Diversity, 1760 UNTS 79 (opened for signature 5 June 1992) (entry into force 29 December 1993) (Annex LA-82) (hereinafter “CBD”).
259 CBD, Arts. 8(c) and (d).
260 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 109–10.
261 Request for Further Argument, Question 11; see also Letter from Tribunal to the Parties (23 June 2015), Issue C.
262 Tribunal Questions of 10 July 2015, Question 4 (a).
263 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 11.10 [emphasis in original].
264 MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001 (Annex LA-39), Separate Opinion of Judge Wolfrum, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 131 at p. 132.
265 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 114–16, citing, inter alia, Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 280 at p. 294, para. 55 (Annex LA-37); and MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 95 at p. 106, para. 49 (Annex LA-39).
266 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 3), p. 47.
267 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 97–98, citing M/V “SAIGA” (No. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment of 4 December 1997, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 10 at p. 42, paras. 84–85 (Annex LA-36) and M/V “Virginia G” (Panama/Guinea-Bissau), Judgment of 14 April 2014, ITLOS Reports 2014, p. 4 at p. 68, para. 216 (Annex LA-223); Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Merits, Award of 14 August 2015, paras. 193-98.
268 Request for Further Argument, Question 1.
269 Letter from Tribunal to the Parties (23 June 2015), Issue D.
270 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 1.4.
271 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 23.
272 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 26.64; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 22.
273 See Section VII.A.2.c above.
274 Supplemental Written Submission, para 2.9, referring to Treaty of Amity (Annex LA-185).
275 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 109 –110.
276 Request for Further Argument, Question 11; Letter from Tribunal to Parties (23 June 2015), Issue D.
277 See generally Supplemental Written Submission, para. 11.1; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 93.
278 Supplemental Written Submission, paras. 11.3-11.4; Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 93.
279 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 11.10.
280 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 109 –11.
281 CBD, Annex II, Part 2, Article 5 (Annex LA-82).
282 China’s Position Paper, para. 45.
283 China’s Position Paper, para. 46.
284 China’s Position Paper, para. 47.
285 China’s Position Paper, paras. 47, 49.
286 China’s Position Paper, para. 50.
287 Memorial, paras. 7.84–7.87.
288 Memorial, paras. 7.88–7.89.
289 Memorial, paras. 7.90–7.91.
290 Memorial, para. 7.92.
291 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 25.
292 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 25.
293 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 25–26.
294 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 26.
295 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 27; Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Philippine-China Bilateral Consultations: Summary of Proceedings (20-21 March 1995) (Annex 175); Republic of the Philippines, Department of Foreign Affairs, Record of Courtesy Call on Chinese Vice Premier and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen (21 March 1995) (Annex 176); Summary of Proceedings: Philippine-China Bilateral Consultations (20–22 March 1995) (Annex 177); Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Statement: Philippine-China Experts Group Meeting on Confidence Building Measures (23 March 1995) (Annex 178); Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, Transcript of Proceedings: RP-PRC Bilateral Talks (9 August 1995) (Annex 179); Govern-mentof the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Agreed Minutes on the First Philippines-China Bilateral Consultations on the South China Sea Issue (10 August 1995) (Annex 180); Government of the Republic of the Philippines, Transcript of Proceedings Republic of the Philippines-People’s Republic of China Bilateral Talks (10 August 1995), p. 3 (Annex 181). Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Press Communiqueí: PhilippinesChina Foreign Ministry Consultations (29–31 July 1998), para. 4 (Annex 183).
296 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 27–28.
297 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 28.
298 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 34.
299 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 34–35.
300 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 35.
301 Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Award of 18 March 2015, paras. 382–83 (Annex LA-225).
302 Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Merits, Award of 14 August 2015, para. 151.
303 The Tribunal notes that the majority of the records of the Parties’ consultations available to it are the Philippines’ internal records and are therefore less authoritative as to what was said than a record that was prepared jointly. The Tribunal nevertheless considers that the Philippines’ diplomatic records do have evidentiary value insofar as they were contemporaneous to the events in question and were prepared in the course of the Philippines’ normal diplomatic practice.
304 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Philippine-China Bilateral Consultations: Summary of Proceedings (20-21 March 1995) (Annex 175); see also Summary of Proceedings: Philippine-China Bilateral Consultations (20-22 March 1995), para. 36 (Annex 177).
305 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Philippine-China Bilateral Consultations: Summary of Proceedings (20–21 March 1995) (Annex 175); see also Summary of Proceedings: Philippine-China Bilateral Consultations (20-22 March 1995), para. 40 (Annex 177).
306 Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in South China Sea (4 November 2002) (Annex 144).
307 See, e.g., Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Foreign Affairs for Asia and Pacific Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (21 December 1999) (Annex 471).
308 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. CML/17/2009 (7 May 2009) (Annex 191); Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary- General of the United Nations, No. CML/18/2009 (7 May 2009) (Annex 192).
309 Record of Discussion: 17th Philippines-China Foreign Ministry Consultations, paras. 134–41 (14 January 2012) (Annex 204).
310 Record of Discussion: 17th Philippines-China Foreign Ministry Consultations, paras. 148–49 (14 January 2012) (Annex 204).
311 Record of Discussion: 17th Philippines-China Foreign Ministry Consultations, paras. 155–56 (14 January 2012) (Annex 204).
312 Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila, No. 12-1137 (26 April 2012) (Annex 207).
313 Note Verbale from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila to the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, No. (12) PG-206 (29 April 2012) (Annex 208).
314 Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 October 2003, ITLOS Reports 2003, p. 10 at p. 19, para. 47 (Annex LA-41).
315 China’s Position Paper, para. 45.
316 Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 275 at pp. 302–303, para. 56 (Annex LA-25).
317 North Sea Continental Shelf, (Federal Republic of Germany/ Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3 at pp. 46– 48, paras. 83– 87 (Annex LA-4).
318 Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1974, p. 3 at pp. 31–32, paras. 73–75 (Annex LA-8).
319 See, e.g., Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14 at pp. 67–68, para. 149; Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 70 at pp. 129–30, paras. 147–48 (Annex LA-34).
320 Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, Award of 11 April 2006, PCA Award Series at p. 96, para. 206, RIAA Vol. XXVIII, p. 147 at p. 207, para. 206.
321 Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Philippine-China Bilateral Consultations: Summary of Proceedings (20-21 March 1995) (Annex 175); Summary of Proceedings: Philippine-China Bilateral Consultations (20–22 March 1995) (Annex 177); Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Agreed Minutes on the First Philippines-China Bilateral Consultations on the South China Sea Issue (10 August 1995) (Annex 180); Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, Record of Proceedings: 10th Philippines-China Foreign Ministry Consultations (30 July 1998) (Annex 184); Record of Discussion: 17th Philippines-China Foreign Ministry Consultations (14 January 2012) (Annex 204); Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, Notes on the 18thPhilippines-China Foreign Ministry Consultations (19 October 2012) (Annex 85).
322 See, e.g., Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Statement: Philippine-China Experts Group Meeting on Confidence Building Measures (23 March 1995) (Annex 178); Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Joint Statement: 3rd Philippines-China Experts’ Group Meeting on Confidence-Building Measures, Manila, 3–4 April 2001 (4 April 2001) (Annex 506).
323 See, e.g., Memorandum from Secretary General, Commission on Maritime and Ocean Affairs Secretariat, Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (28 March 2011) (Annex 71).
324 See, e.g., Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-110-2012-S (26 July 2012) (Annex 84); Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-080-2012-S (24 May 2012) (Annex 81); Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-064-2011-S (21 June 2011) (Annex 72); Memorandum from Acting Assistant Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs (10 March 2011) (Annex 70); Memorandum from Assistant Secretary, Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, to Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (7 February 2011) (Annex 68); Memorandum from Secretary General, Commission on Maritime and Ocean Affairs Secretariat, Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (7 December 2010) (Annex 66).
325 Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 October 2003, ITLOS Reports 2003, p. 10 at p. 19, para. 47 (Annex LA-41).
326 Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland, Advisory Opinion of 15 October 1931, PCIJ Series A/B, No. 42, p. 108 at p. 116.
327 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Jurisdiction, Judgment of 30 August 1924, PCIJ Series A, No. 2, p. 6 at p 15 (Annex LA-57).
328 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 70 at p. 133, para. 161 (Annex LA-34).
329 China’s Position Paper, para. 79.
330 See Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 4 August 2000, RIAA, Vol. XXIII, p. 1 at p. 44, para. 61 (Annex LA-50).
331 Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Award of 18 March 2015, para. 317 (Annex LA-225).
332 Memorial, para. 7.96.
333 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 103–105.
334 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 4.1.
335 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 4.6.
336 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 104.
337 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 5.1.
338 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 5.4.
339 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 5.5.
340 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 5.8.
341 See China’s Position Paper, para. 58.
342 China’s Position Paper, para. 72.
343 China’s Position Paper, para. 68.
344 China’s Position Paper, para. 73.
345 Memorial, para. 5.96.
346 Request for Further Argument, 16 December 2014, Requests No. 17–24; Letter from Tribunal to the Parties (23 June 2015).
347 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 49–50.
348 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 39.
349 Supplemental Written Submission, para. 5.5.
350 Memorial, para. 7.129.
351 People’s Republic of China, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act (26 June 1998), Art. 14 (Chinese version) (Annex 107).
352 Memorial, para. 4.28; see also Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), pp. 59–62.
353 Memorial, para. 7.130.
354 Memorial, para. 7.139.
355 Memorial, para. 7.147.
356 Memorial, para. 7.148.
357 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 81.
358 Memorial, para. 7.151.
359 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 88 (citing Memorandum from the Ambassador of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (10 March 1995) (Annex 18); Memorandum from the Ambassador of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (10 April 1995) (Annex 21); Memorandum from the Ambassador of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-231-95 (20 April 1995) (Annex 22); Memorandum from Ambassador of the Republic of Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-76-98-S (6 November 1998) (Annex 33); Memorandum from Ambassador of the Republic of Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-77-98-S (9 November 1998) (Annex 34); Memorandum from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the President of the Republic of the Philippines (14 November 1998) (Annex 36); Memorandum from Ambassador of the Republic of Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-18-99-S (15 March 1999) (Annex 38); Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Philippine-China Bilateral Consultations: Summary of Proceedings (20–21 March 1995) (Annex 175); Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the People’s Republic of China, Agreed Minutes on the First Philippines-China Bilateral Consultations on the South China Sea Issue (10 August 1995) (Annex 180); Government of the Republic of the Philippines, Transcript of Proceedings Republic of the Philippines-People’s Republic of China Bilateral Talks (10 August 1995) (Annex 181)).
360 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 3), p. 53.
361 Memorial, 7.153.
362 Memorial, 7.154.
363 Memorial, 7.154.
364 Memorial, 7.154.
365 Procedural Order No. 4, 21 April 2015, para. 2.2.
366 ICJ Rules of Court, Article 79(9). For similar provision in the ITLOS Rules, see Article 97(6).
367 See, e.g., Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392 at pp. 425–26, para. 76 (Annex LA-13); Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 9 at pp. 28–29, para. 50 (Annex LA-24); Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 275 at pp. 324–25, paras. 116 –17 (Annex LA-25).
368 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 832 at p. 850, para. 46.
369 Ibid., para. 51 (internal citations omitted). See also Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 24 September 2015, para. 53 (in which the Court found that it was not precluded from ruling on Chile’s objection at a preliminary stage because “the Court considers that it has all the facts necessary to rule on Chile’s objection . . . .”)
370 Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the French Republic, Award of 14 March 1978, RIAA Vol. XVIII, p. 271 at pp. 290–291, paras. 16–17.
371 Guyana v. Suriname, Preliminary Objections, Order No. 2 of 18 July 2005, para. 2. The tribunal in Chagos Marine Protected Area likewise declined to conduct a separate jurisdictional phase of the United Kingdom’s objections. See Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Award of 18 March 2015, paras. 28–31 (Annex LA-225), referencing Procedural Order No. 2 of 15 January 2013 (declining UK’s application to hear preliminary objections relating to territorial sovereignty separately).
372 Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Jurisdiction, Award of 26 November 2014 (Annex LA-180); Arctic Sunrise (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Merits, Award of 14 August 2015, paras. 142–86.
373 Letter from the Chinese Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, addressed to the individual members of the Tribunal, 6 February 2015.
374 China’s Position Paper, para. 2.
375 Philippines’ Letter of 26 January 2015.
376 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 2), p. 148.
377 Jurisdictional Hearing Tr. (Day 3), pp. 27-28.
378 Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council (India v. Pakistan), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1972, p. 46 at p. 56.
379 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 832 at p. 852, para. 51.
380 Procedural Order No. 4, 21 April 2015, para. 1.1.
381 Eritrea/Yemen, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the First Stage of the Proceedings (Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute), 9 October 1998, PCA Award Series at p. 145, paras. 525–26, RIAA Vol. XXII, p. 209 at pp. 329–30, paras. 525–26 (Annex LA-48).
