Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T03:18:16.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

South China Sea Arbitration

Arbitration Tribunal.  29 October 2015 ; 12 July 2016 ; 29 October 2015 ; 12 July 2016 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Arbitration — Jurisdiction and admissibility — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — UNCLOS Part XV and Annex VII — Preliminary matters — Consequences of non-participation by respondent in arbitration proceedings — Whether arbitration constituting abuse of legal process — Identification and characterization of dispute — Whether dispute concerning interpretation and application of UNCLOS — Whether dispute concerning territorial sovereignty — Whether dispute concerning maritime delimitation — Whether third parties indispensable to proceedings

Arbitration — Preconditions to Tribunal’s jurisdiction — UNCLOS Part XV, Section 1 — UNCLOS Articles 281, 282 and 283 — Whether Parties agreeing to seek settlement by a means of their own choice — Whether settlement reached by recourse to agreed means — Whether Parties’ agreement excluding further procedure — Whether Parties agreeing through general, regional or bilateral agreement to submit dispute to procedure entailing binding decision — Whether Parties having agreed to opt back in to Part XV — Obligation to exchange views — Obligation to negotiate prior to initiation of compulsory procedures

Arbitration — Limitations and exceptions to Tribunal’s jurisdiction — UNCLOS Part XV, Section 3 — Automatic limitations under Article 297 — Optional exceptions under Article 298 — China’s declaration under Article 298 — Exclusions concerning maritime delimitation — Exclusions concerning historic titles — Exclusions concerning military activities — Exclusions concerning law enforcement activities — Whether issues of jurisdiction possessing exclusive preliminary character

Sea — Scope of UNCLOS — Title to land territory — Historic rights to maritime spaces — South China Sea — China’s “nine-dash line” — Scope of maritime entitlements under UNCLOS — Historic rights to living and non-living resources within nine-dash line

Sea — Islands and other maritime features — UNCLOS Articles 13 and 121 — Maritime entitlement of features — Whether features constituting low-tide elevations — Whether low-tide elevations capable of appropriation — Whether features constituting rocks — Whether Spratly Islands having high-tide features

Sea — Fisheries — UNCLOS Articles 2(3), 56, 58, 60, 77 and 80 — Traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal — Whether China interfering with oil exploration at Reed Bank — China’s 2012 moratorium on fishing in South China Sea — Flag State’s obligation of due diligence over fishing vessels — Whether China constructing artificial islands and installations at Mischief Reef — Philippines’ jurisdiction over artificial islands in exclusive economic zone and continental shelf

Sea — Marine environment — UNCLOS Articles 123, 192, 194, 197 and 206 — Marine environment protection — Whether China engaging in harmful fishing practices — Whether China constructing artificial islands, installations and structures on seven reefs in Spratly Islands — Obligation to prevent direct harvesting of endangered species — Obligation to prevent destruction of endangered species’ habitat — Obligation to cooperate — Obligation to communicate environmental impact assessment

Sea — Safety at sea — UNCLOS Article 194 — Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (“COLREGS”) — COLREGS Rules 2, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 — Safety of navigation — Risks of collision — China’s operation of law enforcement vessels at Scarborough Shoal

Sea — Dispute settlement — UNCLOS Part XV — UNCLOS Articles 279, 296 and 300 — Duty to refrain from aggravating or extending a dispute during settlement proceedings — General international law — Duty to abstain from measure capable of exercising prejudicial effect on execution of decision

Treaties — Binding agreements — Declaration of Conduct of Parties — Bilateral agreements — Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, 1976 — Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 — Whether Declaration of Conduct binding agreement on means of dispute settlement — Whether bilateral statements constituting legally binding agreements — Interpretation

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)