ARBITRATION - Press Release

Please read the ARBITRATION - Press Release:

THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION(THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)

Philippines wins arbitration vs. China

Philippines wins arbitration case vs. China over South China Sea / West Philippine Sea.

Manila Philippines – The permanent court of arbitration in Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines in a maritime dispute which concludes that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to the bulk of the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).

It has finally been decided that the West Philippines Sea (South China Sea) rightfully belongs to the Philippines nullifying the “9 dash line” claim of China.
“The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line.’” the statement said.

“Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China,” it added.

In a ruling Tuesday July 12, 2016, the tribunal also found that China had interfered with Philippine petroleum exploration at Reed Bank, tried to stop fishing by Philippine vessels within the country’s exclusive economic zone, and failed to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing within the Philippines’ EEZ at Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal.


The Tribunal also found the none of the sea features claimed by China were capable of generating an Exclusive Economic Zone which gives country maritime rights to resources such as fish, and oil and gas within 200 nautical miles of that land mass.

Chinese fisherman had also killed endangered sea turtles and giant clams “on a substantial scale” with the full knowledge of China, the tribunal found.
Philippines filed its case in January 2013 following the tense standoff between Chinese and Philippines ships at Scarborough shoal in April 2012.


China’s reclamation activities have alarmed other Southeast Asian nations that also have competing claims in the West Philippine Sea.

Because China had no rights to the area as an Exclusive Economic Zone, the tribunal found that some of its activities in the region were in breach of the Philippines’ sovereign rights.


#WestPhilippineSea #WestPHSea #UNCLOS #PhilippineEEZ  #CHexit #PHwins

Court ruling due in South China Sea row between Philippines and China

Territorial disputes

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague is set to deliver its verdict on Tuesday, July 12. DW answers some of the questions related to the case to explain what the dispute is about and what is at stake.

Mischief Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands

What is the case about?

On January 22, 2013 the Philippines took the South China Sea (SCS) dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) located at The Hague in the Netherlands.
Basically, the Philippines want the PCA to clarify three key issues:
1. Which legal status do China's claims in the SCS have, especially when it comes to the so-called nine-dash-line (NDL)?
2. Are the claimed areas islands, rocks or just submerged stretches of sand, whose surface can only be seen at low tide? This is one of the key questions, because in international law an island leads to an entirely different territorial claim than a rock.
3. The PCA is supposed to rule, whether China has been operating illegally inside the Philippines' exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and has prevented the Philippines from exploiting its economic zone.
The Philippines has opted out of clarifying the question: which country is able to claim sovereignty over islands, reefs and rocks in the disputed area? Manila wants to clarify how the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has to be applied.
The cause of the dispute is some islets of the Spratly archipelago, which covers an area of more than 420,000 square kilometers in the SCS. The islands are controlled by various neighboring countries, together with some other reefs and rocks. "Scarborough Shoal," "Second Thomas Shoal," "Gaven Riff" and "Reed Bank" are among them.

What is the legal basis for the claims?

The Philippines refers to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which after years of negotiations was agreed on in 1982, and came into effect in 1994. Together with 165 other nations, the Philippines and the People's Republic of China (PRC) signed the convention. But the United States hasn't.
China claims to have historic rights and cites a series of controversial documents, some of them dating back to the Ming dynasty which ruled China between the 14th and 17th centuries. However, historic issues are not part of the jurisdiction of UNCLOS.
All signatories of the maritime convention have committed themselves to settle any issue peacefully. One mechanism is to take a dispute to court, even if one of the contestants declines arbitration.

Does the PCA have jurisdiction in this case?

On February 19, 2013 the People's Republic of China rejected the Philippines' move and said it did not accept the court's jurisdiction.
According to the PRC, Manila's decision will eventually lead to the question: which country has the right of sovereignty and where maritime borders have to be drawn? In other words, this dispute does not center on the interpretation of UNCLOS, but territorial issues. However, in the PRC's view, this exceeds the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

South China Sea dispute

Beijing argues that two treaties between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) would be appropriate to solve the dispute: the ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (2002) and the ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia from 1976 which was signed by China in 2003. The Philippines, in turn, has declared that all attempts to solve the dispute on the basis of the two treaties have been either blocked or delayed by China.
The court accepted the case and initiated proceedings on October 29, 2015, despite the PRC's objections. However, the tribunal rejected some of the Philippines' charges, declaring that the court's jurisdiction was only applicable to lawsuits connected to UNCLOS.
Until today, China does not acknowledge the court's jurisdiction and does not participate in the proceedings.

What is the nine-dash-line (NDL) all about?

The nine-dash-line (NDL) (sometimes it is also called ten- or eleven-dash-line) is a demarcation line which was used by the Republic of China for the first time on an official map in 1947. It illustrates the territorial claims of the Republic of China in the South China Sea.
The demarcation line was inherited by the Communist rulers of China after the PRC was founded in 1949 and, until today, is an official claim of the PRC.

From reef to island
Significant construction on Gaven Reef began in 2014, with a total of 114,000 square meters of land already created. Satellite pictures show just how fast construction has progressed on the reef. A new artificial island was created between March (left) and August (right) 2014.
 

There are two major problems with the nine-dash-line:
1. Nobody has ever defined where the actual dashes are located. There is no exact geographic data using longitudes and latitudes.
2. China has never clarified whether it only claims sovereignty over the islets, reefs and rocks inside the NDL or the entire area falling within the NDL.
Many legal experts say the NDL does not comply with international law.

What may happen after the verdict?

According to the UNCLOS, the court's ruling is binding on all contesting parties. Annex VII of the UNCLOS says the judgment is final and cannot be appealed. In theory, both countries have to accept the court's decision and adhere to it. Nevertheless, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague has no power to enforce the verdict.

At most, the signatories of UNCLOS could punish China with consequences regarding its rights as a member of three UNCLOS bodies: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Seabed Authority and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

China could be prompted to withdraw its judge from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg. Also, cases at the International Seabed Authority affecting Chinese interests could be shelved.

Credits to: http://www.dw.com

 

UN Court of Arbitration will set a verdict on sea row on July 12 2016.

July 12, 2016 is the date where Permanent Court of Arbitration will set its ruling on the arbitration case filed by the Philippines against China in relation to occupying the West Philippine Sea.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration says that 'there will be no in-person meeting or ceremony for the rendering of the award.

The historic case is handled by an arbitral tribunal at the PCA. In these arbitration proceedings, the Philippines seek to nullify China's expansive claim over practically the whole South China Sea, parts of which the Philippines claims as the West Philippine Sea.

"The Tribunal will issue its Award on Tuesday, 12 July 2016, at approximately 11 am CEST, The Hague," the PCA said in a statement Wednesday evening, June 29.

"The Award will first be issued via e-mail to the Parties, along with an accompanying Press Release containing a summary of the Award. The Press Release will be in English and French, with an unofficial Mandarin Chinese translation provided," the PCA added.

"The Parties will receive originally signed versions of the Award. Hard copies of the Award will also be sent to the Embassies of States that were granted observer status for the hearings. There will be no in-person meeting or ceremony for the rendering of the Award," the PCA said.

The Philippines filed the memorial before The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in 2013 after Chinese ships refused to withdraw from the Panatag (Scarborough) shoal, which is being claimed by China and the Philippines. The shoal is within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.
The government argued that China’s nine-dash-line claim over almost the entire West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) should be declared invalid because these are contrary to the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

Senior diplomats and foreign policy experts are holding marathon meetings at the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to map out Manila’s strategy once the ruling has been handed down.

US vows ‘action’ if China builds new S. China Sea structures

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter delivers a speech titled “Meeting Asia’s Complex Security Challenges” at the 15th International Institute for Strategic Studies Shangri-la Dialogue, or IISS, Asia Security Summit on Saturday, June 4, 2016, in Singapore. AP PHOTO

SINGAPORE—Chinese construction on a South China Sea islet claimed by the Philippines would prompt “actions being taken” by the United States and other nations, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter warned Saturday.

Speaking at a security summit in Singapore, Carter said Beijing risks building a “Great Wall of self-isolation” with its military expansion in the contested waters, but he also proposed stronger bilateral security cooperation to reduce the risks of a mishap.

“I hope that this development doesn’t occur because it will result in actions being taken both by the United States, and actions being taken by others in the region that will have the effect of not only increasing tensions but isolating China,” Carter said when asked about Scarborough Shoal in a forum also attended by senior Chinese military officials.

Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post has reported that China plans to establish an outpost on the shoal, 230 kilometers (140 miles) off the Philippine coast, which Manila says lies in its exclusive economic zone.

Beijing claims nearly all of the strategically vital sea and has developed contested reefs into artificial islands, some topped with airstrips.

Manila says China took effective control of Scarborough Shoal in 2012, stationing patrol vessels and shooing away Filipino fishermen, after a two-month stand-off with the Philippine Navy.

The Post cited a source closed to the Chinese military as saying construction at the outpost would allow Beijing to “further perfect” its air coverage across the South China Sea, suggesting it plans to build an airstrip.

‘Great Wall of self-isolation’

The construction plans were likely to be accelerated in light of the upcoming ruling from the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague on a case brought by the Philippines against China, which has shunned the proceedings and says it will not recognize any ruling.

In a prepared speech, Carter said the United States views the upcoming ruling “as an opportunity for China and the rest of the region to recommit to a principled future, to renewed diplomacy, and to lowering tensions, rather than raising them.”

The Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam have competing claims in the sea, which encompass vital global shipping routes and is believed to have significant oil and gas deposits.

Beijing’s claim to nearly the entire sea, based on controversial historical records, has also pitted it against the United States, which has conducted patrols near Chinese-held islands to press for freedom of navigation.

“Unfortunately, if these actions continue, China could end up erecting a Great Wall of self-isolation,” Carter said in his speech.

The key to regional security, Carter said, was enhanced military cooperation across the region and the observance of “core principles” such as the peaceful resolution of disputes through legal means and the development of a “principled security network.”

He also suggested the United States and China would benefit from better military ties — both to build understanding and to avoid the risk of mishaps.

According to the Pentagon, two Chinese fighters last month conducted an “unsafe” intercept of a US spy plane in international air space over the South China Sea, further heightening tensions in the strategically vital waters.

“America wants to expand military-to-military agreements with China to focus not only on risk reduction, but also on practical cooperation,” Carter said.

His attendance at the summit is part of a broader US diplomatic push, known as the Asia “rebalance”, to build and maintain alliances in the Asia-Pacific region, which America sees as key to its own long-term economic and security interests.

In a report last month, the Pentagon said China put its land reclamation efforts on hold in the Spratly Islands chain at the end of 2015. Instead, it focused on adding military infrastructure to its reclaimed features.

In all, China has added more than 3,200 acres (1,295 hectares) of land to the seven features it occupies in the Spratlys, the report found, and it has added lengthy runways to three of these.

Group of Seven (G7) sends message to China

ISE CITY, Japan—With a keen eye on the Philippines’ legal battle with China over territory in the South China Sea, the leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) advanced democracies have agreed to send a strong message on the importance of international law in resolving maritime disputes in Asia.

Though no individual countries were mentioned, the contents of their declaration at the close of an annual summit appeared to be directed at China.

China’s claim to nearly the entire South China Sea and militarization of the region has angered some of its Southeast Asian neighbors and sparked fears over threats to freedom of navigation in the strategic waterway.

“We are concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas, and emphasize the fundamental importance of peaceful management and settlement of disputes,” the G7 leaders said.

The leaders—representing the United States, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Canada—said settlement of disputes should be “peaceful” and “freedom of navigation and overflight” should be respected.

They said claims in the East and South China Seas should be made based on international law and countries should refrain from “unilateral actions that could increase tensions” while also avoiding “force or coercion in trying to drive their claims.”

They also stressed that judicial means, “including arbitration,” should be used.

That call came ahead of a ruling expected within weeks on China’s claims brought by the Philippines to the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. China has said it does not recognize the case.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stressed the importance of the rule of law and mentioned the Philippine case as a focal point.

“As for the Philippines, soon the decision in its arbitration case will be announced. From the standpoint of the rule of law, it’s important that respective countries clearly demonstrate their stance [on this],” Abe said.

Before Friday’s declaration, the G7 leaders said they should pay close attention to the Philippine case, with some of them stating that they should “raise their voice on this,” if necessary.

On the first day of the two-day G7 Ise-Shima Summit, the seven heads of state arrived at a decision to send a bold signal emphasizing international law in disputes in the East and South China Seas, a Japanese spokesperson said.

“On the expected judgment by the [UN] court of the issue of the oceans, G7 should pay keen attention on this, and, if necessary, will raise their voice on this,” said Yasuhisa Kawamura, press secretary of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Clear signal

At a briefing late Thursday, Kawamura relayed to the press the outcome of the closed session among the G7 leaders who had gathered for their annual meeting at the Shima Kanko Hotel nestled in the picturesque Ise-Shima region.

“They agreed on the importance of observance of international law, rule and principle. This point should be sent out as a clear signal to the rest of the world. That is G7’s expected role,” Kawamura said.

He said the G7 leaders also recognized concerns about the people’s freedom of navigation and overflight, which, he added, were personally important to the heads of state.

Asked to elaborate on what conditions would necessitate raising the G7 bloc’s voice, Kawamura clarified that these words were only a “comment” by the participants, and were not a wrap-up conclusion.

Though not a member of G7, China, the world’s second-largest economy, cast a shadow over the talks with its increasingly aggressive posture in the East and South China Seas.

China is locked in dispute with G7 host Japan over ownership of a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea known to the Japanese as the Senkakus and to the Chinese as Diaoyus.

To bolster its claim to the islands, China has declared an air defense identification zone in the East China Sea, which Japan, the United States and their allies have refused to recognize.

Principled approach

Pressed to answer yes or no to a question on whether G7 would take a leadership role in the maritime disputes involving China, Kawamura said the issue was not so black and white.

“Diplomacy is sometimes not a yes or no type of interactions,” he said. “Let me put it this way: They (G7 leaders) recognized the concerns, and they recognized the necessity to address it, and they agreed to a principled approach to the issues on the oceans.”

Kawamura cited another comment by the world leaders that G7 might need to cooperate with members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and possibly bring up the issue at the upcoming East Asia Summit in September.