The arbitration case between the Philippines and China cannot settle all of these

disputes, nor will it since the Philippines has not asked the PCA to do so. The arbitral
tribunal, if it determines it has jurisdiction, will then move on to address the issues of
the legal basis of Chinas nine-dash line map and historic rights in South China Sea
under international law, the legal status of maritime features and whether activities
of China damaged the regional marine environment in the region. Those issues are
the essential components of the South China Sea disputes, since the vagueness
underlying them arguably only increases the tension in the disputed area.
The interpretation of article 121, which explains the legal definitions of islands and
rocks, is the prime example of such ambiguity. According to Professor Erik
Franckx, there has always been difficulty in getting exact clarity on this article, since
the language used enables each party to have their own understanding. In their
previous law of the sea cases, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) have also found their own way
to not directly comment on this issue, with the Black Sea case and the case between
Bangladesh and Myanmar being recent examples.
The South China Sea arbitration case is the first time a state party has directly asked
an international tribunal to decide on this problem. The decision of the PCA on the
case will not only potentially help reduce the complexity of the current disputes and
perhaps consequently dampen regional tensions, it also contributes to the
development of international law. Given this, it would be a mistake to underestimate
the legal importance of this case.

What are the consequences of Chinas approach to the Philippines South China Sea case?
The real impacts will arguably be felt not in 2015 or even 2016, but in the next five or ten
years in the future when the time comes for China to settle all of its disputes with its
neighbors. Chinas interactions with its neighbor countries have been increasing in both
depth and scope, and disputes of all kinds may happen at any time. Given this, it would seem
counterproductive for China to underestimate or actively undermine international law,
because legal mechanisms may be the safest and wisest course Beijing can take to protect its
lawful rights and interests in Asia and the world. Seen in this light, Chinas failure to appear
in this case could have negative impacts not only in the South China Sea but also in other
areas. Other countries may also adopt the same attitude toward Beijing in cases that it
initiates in the future, to cite just one example.
This would be unwise. Chinas decision to ignore international law risks upsetting her
peaceful rise, which could bring about reputational risks and financial problems. Consider
how Chinas attitude would look to member states that are part of the new Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) or the One Belt, One Road initiative. These countries
would have reason to be concerned about the how these institutions would be governed since
China, despite being a party to international agreements, is attempting to weasel its way out
of any compulsory dispute settlement mechanism. That suggests that laws and institutions in

Chinas eyes are merely a tool to obtain power, rather than an instrument to peacefully
manage conflicts of interest between states.
Also making negotiations difficult is an "absolutist political position taken by some claimants who insist
that their own claims are 'indisputable' and represent territoryhowever distant from their shores,"
Russel said, without directly citing China.
He said such claims include assertions that the territorial waters were "entrusted to them by
ancestors" and vows never to relinquish "one inch."
if the arbitral tribunal finds it has jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) over the Philippines' claims and proceeds deliberating on the merits of the case, its
potential ruling can legally bind parties to the row.
He explained that the tribunal may decide on whether China's nine-dash line claim is consistent with
the UNCLOS or that the maritime features have their own exclusive economic zones and continental
shelves.
The ruling will address "the scope of the overlapping maritime claims and hopefully the points of
friction would be significantly reduced," Russel said.
Despite this, issues on sovereignty and boundary would remain unresolved, he said.

The United States Department of State issues a Limits in the Seas report on
Chinas Nine-Dash Line claim. In the report, the State Department examines
three different possible rationales for Chinas Nine-Dash Line claim and examines
the legality of each under UNCLOS and customary international law. In its
examination of the legality of a historic waters claim, the report notes that
numerous claimants in the South China Sea participate in activities that
demonstrate that there is not an effective or continuous exercise of Chinese
sovereignty in the region.
In an interview with China Daily, Director-General of the Department of Boundary
and Ocean Affairs Mr. Ouyang Yujing reiterates that China has indisputable
sovereignty over the disputed territory with the Philippines, and all island
construction is within Chinese territory and is unrelated to the arbitration case.
On the first day of hearings before the Arbitral Tribunal, Philippine Secretary of
Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario outlines the Philippines general case against
China, and places strong emphasis on the fact that the Philippines recognizes
that the Tribunal cannot rule on issues of sovereignty, and is instead seeking an
outcome that rejects Chinas claim to the nine-dash line and historic rights.
Sec. del Rosario goes on to underline how past attempts at bilateral negotiations
between China and the Philippines have failed to resolve the maritime disputes,
causing the Philippines to have no choice but to initiate the arbitration case.
The second day of hearings focuses on environmental and fishing issues in the
South China Sea. During his statements before the tribunal, Secretary of Foreign

Affairs Albert del Rosario says "China has irreversibly damaged the regional
marine environment, in breach of UNCLOS, by its destruction of coral reefs in the
South China Sea, including areas within the Philippines EEZ, by its destructive
and hazardous fishing practices, and by its harvesting of endangered species."

Its claim to ownership of 90 percent of the South China Sea is

clearly preposterous. To say its based on history is laughable.
History? Way back to 1947, it says. I was alive then; thats current
events.
The claim that its right is incontestable is as absurd and two-faced
as everything else its saying. The claim is being contestedby
the Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan. If China
truly believes it owns all this area, it would prove so in
international court. That it refuses to do so is, in itself, admission
that it knows it has no legitimate claim.
The large levels of trade and investment create a reality that
leaders cant ignore no matter how much theyd wish to. But then,
if all of them did take a strong stand, what could China do? It
couldnt cut trade with all; it needs them, too, particularly as
Chinas economy and advantages are being whittled down. So a
stronger group of leaders in Asia would be helpful.
It probably wont lead to war, but that cant be ruled out. What it
can lead to is annexation. As Russia has shown in Ukraine, it can
take what it wants, and the world wont stop it. Sanctions, yes,
but you can survive sanctions and theres a limit.
But ultimately, the most desirable outcome is for China to stop its construction
activities in the South China Sea and agree that nobody owns those islands and
jointly explore the possible wealth of the area and share it if any is found, while
leaving the seas and all air space open to free, unhampered travel.
Its time for China to become a responsible member of the international
community, not the bullying pariah its headed to becoming.
Briefly, these two developments are, first and foremost, the ruling issued last Thursday, October 29, at
the Hague in the Netherlands by the International Arbitration tribunal. The ruling said that it can take
on the case between China and the Philippines over disputed territory in the South China Sea, in the
process overruling objections from Beijing that the arbitration body has no authority to hear the case.
The ruling says it has the authority and the jurisdiction.
At this stage, no words could be more reassuring for our contention and petition that Chinas massive
territorial claims in the disputed waters do not conform with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea (Unclos) and should be declared invalid. It reflects favorably on our other assertion that some
Chinese-occupied reefs and shoals do not generate, or create a claim to, territorial waters.

The second positive development is the news coming from Washington, DC, that Chinese President
Xi Jinpings refusal to back down over his countrys island-building campaign in disputed waters has
hardened US President Barack Obamas attitude toward Beijing.
The plan is to send American warships to within 12 nautical miles, or about 22 km, of Chinas artificial
islands. Under international law, a countrys territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles from its shore.
The maneuver would tell Beijing and its neighbors that the US does not recognize Chinese
sovereignty over the area.
Obamas decision has been welcomed in Tokyo, Manila and other Asian capitals. Nevertheless, the
mission carries risks: should the Chinese military try to stop the American ships, it could trigger the
outbreak of conflict, which neither side wants.
The reclaimed islets by China should not been there in the first place,, if the tenant in malacanang just
fight for our rights by just stationing small contingent of wooden small crafts armed to the teeth with a
Philippine Navy Seal and if they were outgunned surely we will create to much attention in the world.
This will mark Chinas as the villain. Therefore, the U. S. will surely be shamed if they will not come for
aide militarily or not for the simple reasons as Ally they are not reliable. Our MDT says any
commission vessel if attack the U.S. is automatically oblige to retaliate.

But the Tribunal rejected Chinas arguments saying that Chinas

non-appearance in these proceedings does not deprive the
Tribunal of jurisdiction, and the Tribunal held that the Philippines
had sought to negotiate with China and international law does
not require a State to continue negotiations when it concludes
that the possibility of a negotiated solution has been exhausted.
-----You need to have land before you can have rights to the sea. Its
as simple as that.You cannot just have rights to the sea without
owning land, former Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza said in a
forum at the University of the Philippines (UP) Law Center in 2014,
citing the basic principle of UNCLOS.
--You need to have land before you can have rights to the sea. Its as simple as
that.You cannot just have rights to the sea without owning land, former Solicitor
General Francis Jardeleza said in a forum at the University of the Philippines (UP)
Law Center in 2014, citing the basic principle of UNCLOS.
China asserts it has indisputable sovereignty and historic rights to nearly the
entire South China Sea using its nine-dash line claim that overlaps with the
UNCLOS-mandated 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
The Tribunal has not issued a decision on its jurisdiction on the
following seven points of the Philippines saying that they will

schedule further hearings to present oral arguments and answer

questions on the merits of the Philippines claims and any
remaining issues deferred from the jurisdictional phase.
--The UNCLOS states three different types of maritime features that allow for the
waters surrounding a country to be claimed as part of its territory.
The first are Islands defined as a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by
water and above water at high tide, Jardeleza said.
Islands, such as Luzon, entitles the country that owns it to a 12 nautical mile
(approximately 22 kilometers) territorial sea from the coastline with which it has
full sovereignty. A country can exclude foreign entities from its territorial sea.
The island is also entitled to a 200 nm (approximately 370 km) exclusive economic
zone (EEZ), which gives the country the sole right to exploit the resources within it
such as fish and also mineral and oil reserves, if any.
The second are rocks or reefs that are mostly below water but have rocky
protrusions above water during high tide. The important point
under UNCLOS states that a maritime feature is a rock if it cannot sustain human
habitation or economic life on its own, Jardeleza said.
Such mostly submerged features are entitled to only a 12 nm territorial sea and
no EEZ. Examples of such are Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Panatag shoal or
Scarborough shoal, which lies 120 nm off the coast of Zambales province.
The shoal is a submerged coral reef with a rocky protrusion that is three meters
above the water during high tide. It cannot be classified as an island because it
cannot sustain economic activity or humans on its own, Jardeleza said.
The third type of maritime features called low tide elevation are submerged
rocks and reefs that are not visible above water. This type of maritime feature is not
entitled to any territorial sea or EEZ.

Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/99689/unclosexplained-why-chinas-claims-in-south-china-sea-areinvalid#ixzz3rrKvBsSo

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

You dont have to be a rocket scientist, the [nine-dash line] claim

violates UNCLOS. The most that China can claim should only be
200 nm outside of Hainan, Jardeleza said.
Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/99689/unclosexplained-why-chinas-claims-in-south-china-sea-areinvalid#ixzz3rrL5AtDo
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
The other four are rocks or reefs that are, at most, entitled to only 12 nm. These are
Scarborough shoal, 120 nm from Luzon, Johnson reef 180
(nm from Palawan), Cuarteron reef (240nm from Palawan) and Fiery Cross reef
(255 nm from Palawan).
The position of the Philippines is [Chinas] nine-dash line is invalid. It
violates UNCLOS. The four reefs that are below water all the time are entitled to
no rights and the four are rocks which would only have 12 nautical
miles, Jardeleza said.

Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/99689/unclosexplained-why-chinas-claims-in-south-china-sea-areinvalid#ixzz3rrLEOeba

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
THE Philippines governments continued refusal to hold bilateral talks with China
will force the superpower to take a more hardline position in the West Philippine
Sea dispute, Senator Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos Jr. said on Wednesday.
China opened the door and we shut it. The Chinese said lets talk and we snubbed
them. Its like the Philippine government itself is encouraging China to take and
maintain an unbending stance on the issue, Marcos said, reacting to Chinas
reported offer to hold a dialogue on the West Philippine Sea dispute.
He said the Philippines will not lose anything by accepting the Chinese invitation.
So talk, and tell them: we are not happy with what you are doing and we do not
agree with what you are doing. But the next thing you say is: how do we fix this?
said Marcos, vice chairman of the Senate committee on foreign relations.

He said rejecting Chinas offer would limit the governments strategic options to
stop China from antagonizing not only the Philippines, but all the other claimantcountries in the West Philippine Sea.
We should not be snobbish. I cant see any reason at all why we are not talking to
China. On the contrary, there are more than enough obvious reasons why we
should talk to superpower China, the senator said.
Marcos acknowledged that with Chinas own geo-political interests and its concern
over the presence of the Americans in the area, holding bilateral talks between
Manila and Beijing is not going to be easy.
Were strategically important to any great power in Asia-Pacific, but we have to
play that role even-handedly. We have to stop thinking in terms of kakampi ko ang
Chinese, kakampi ko ang Kano. Ang kakampi mo lang Pilipino, he said.
What is the national interest, what is good for the Philippines, thats all that we
have to be thinking about, he further said.
Marcos said there are three ways to resolve the dispute: by war, adjudication, or
multilateral/bilateral agreements.
We do not want war. Arbitration is not one that is going to be recognized by the
Chinese. So it has to be negotiations, he said.
In pushing for negotiations, Marcos cited the so-called Cod Wars or the dispute
over rich fishing grounds between the United Kingdom and Spain in the early 80s.
He pointed out that at the height of the tensions, war ships even rammed fishing
boats.
In the end, what did they do? They came to a bilateral agreement to share and
now they are working on that basis, he said.

Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/125769/marcos-phrefusal-of-chinas-offer-for-talks-a-bad-move#ixzz3rrK6W600

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

For Del Rosario, UNCLOS provisions "allow the weak to challenge the
powerful on an equal footing, confident in the conviction that principles

trump power; that law triumphs over force; and that right prevails over
might."
Notably, the Court has rejected an argument in Chinas position paper that the 2002 China
ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea constitutes an
agreement to resolve disputes relating to the South China Sea exclusively through
negotiation. The Court has decided that the Declaration on Conduct was a political
agreement that was not intended to be legally binding. This may influence the already
lethargic process between China and ASEAN toward a binding Code of Conduct for the South
China Sea.

China has cited its so-called historical rights to uphold its 9-dash line, a
demarcation it uses to claim virtually the entire South China Sea.
Even if true, however, Carpio said these historical rights have no bearing
on maritime disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS).
Carpio explained that the UNCLOS extinguished all historical rights of
other states within the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of
the adjacent coastal state.
China has no historical link whatsoever to Scarborough Shoal, the justice
said. The rocks of Scarborough Shoal were never bequeathed to the
present generation of Chinese by their ancestors because their ancestors
never owned these rocks in the first place. (READ: Scarborough Shoal
according to Manila, Beijing)
Carpio, who has written and spoken extensively about the South China
Sea, earlier said the maritime dispute between the Philippines and
China will be an acid testfor international law.
This decision is to be applauded and it will encourage other claimant states to bring forth
their own grievances with China to the open.
If China wants to be taken seriously by the international community and be deemed a
reliable partner by it's neighbors, it should consider dropping it's ambiguous approach
and have the stones to defend it's ridiculous claims with whatever thinks it constitutes
evidence in it's favor and avoid being labeled an expansionist rogue nation.

Let's see if China has the skill to behave like a civilized nation.
Despite their status in the international community, China acts as if there is
No UNCLOS, there is No UN Arbitration and there is No UN at all. They don't
want to be a part of a PEACEFUL dispute settlement so how will you expect
China to render its commitment as one of the five leaders of UN SECURITY
COUNCIL?
The Philippine government on Thursday said no nation in the world is recognizing the validity of China's territorial
claims over the majority of the South China Sea as shown by the recent statements of US senators and
Indonesian President Joko Widodo.
It reaffirms the belief that no country in the world recognizes that the 9-dash line is a valid claim on the part of
China," he said.
Del Rosario noted the Philippines pursued arbitration "to preserve a valued friendship" with China, without
diminishing its deal to pursue a legally binding code of conduct in the South China Sea.
"International law is the great equalizer...We are in the right and right is might," he said. With Reuters

Pressure not only from the Philippines but from the entire world
The jurisdiction over waters does not have connection to history. It must observe the UNCLOS.
Dutton stressed that using history to explain sovereignty erodes the rules of the UNCLOS. [40] It is
understood that China ratified the UNCLOS in 1996.[41]