Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T05:47:41.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal in Philippines v. China Under UNCLOS and in the Absence of China

Part of: South China Sea Arbitration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kate Parlett
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It is not uncommon for decisions of international tribunals to be reported in the pages of the Washington Post or feature on the BBC News website. It is rather less common for awards to feature on the giant screens of New York’s Times Square. But less than two weeks after the Arbitral Tribuna lunder Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea issued its Awardin Philippines v.China, a three-minute video featuring China’s position was broadcast repeatedly on the screen better known forbroadcasting New Year’s Eve festivities than argumentation on the competence of international tribunals. The video asserted that China’s “indisputable sovereignty over [the South China Sea islands] has sufficient historic and legal basis” and that “the Arbitral Tribunalvainly attempted to deny China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea.” It further stated that “China did not participate in the illegal South China Sea arbitration, nor accepts the Awardso as to defend the solemnity of international law.” This latter statement goes to the very heart of the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention) and its competence to decide the case despite China’s nonparticipation in the proceedings.

Type
Symposium on the South China Sea Arbitration
Information
AJIL Unbound , Volume 110 , 2016 , pp. 266 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

References

1 The South China Sea Arbitration (Phil. v. China), PCA Case No. 2013-19, Award (July 12, 2016) [here in after Final Award]. The same Tribunalissued an Awardon Jurisdiction and Admissibility in 2015: The South China Sea Arbitration (Phil. v. China), PCA Case No. 2013-19, Awardon Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Oct. 29, 2015) [here in after Awardon Jurisdiction].

2 The video is available at China Review Studio, The South China Sea, Youtube.

3 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 3 [here in after UNCLOS].

4 See UNCLOS, supra note 3, arts.298 (1)(a) (i) and 298 (2) (b). The relevance of the optional exception for military activities is discussed in Lori Fisler Damrosch, Military Activities in the UNCLOS Compulsory Dispute Settlement System: Implications of the South China Sea Arbitration for U.S. Ratification of UNCLOS, 110 AJIL Unbound 273 (2016).

5 UNCLOS, supra note 3, art. 286.

6 UNCLOS, supra note 3, art. 287.

7 UNCLOS, supra note 3, Annex VII, Article 11.

8 Lucy Reed & Kenneth Wong, Marine Entitlements in the South China Sea: The Arbitration Between the Philippines and China, 110 AJIL (forthcoming 2016). See also, Final Award,supra note 1, at paras. 115-116; Awardon Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at para. 112.

9 See Awardon Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at para. 10.

10 Final Award, supra note 1, at para. 127; see also, Awardon Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at para. 121.

11 UNCLOS, supra note 3, art. 288 (4).

12 UNCLOS, supra note 3, VII, Article 9.

13 Final Award, supra note 1, at para. 118, relying on UNCLOS, supra note 3, art.296(1) and Annex VIII, art. 11.

14 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep.14, 24 (June 27); Arctic Sunrise (Neth.v.Russ.), PCA Case No. 2014-02, Awardon the Merits, para. 10 (Aug. 14,2015).

15 UNCLOS, supra note 3, Annex VII, art.9.

16 Final Award, supra note 1, at para. 130; see also, Awardon Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at paras. 119-123.

17 Final Award, supra note 1, at para. 131

18 Id. at para. 121. Concerning steps to ensure procedural fairness to the Philippines, see id. at paras.123-127.

19 Id. at para. 127, quoting remarks of the Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (May 12, 2016).

20 The South China Sea Arbitration (Phil. v. China), PCA Case No. 2013-19, Procedural Order No. 4, para. 1.1 (Apr. 21, 2015).

21 Position Paper ofthe 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, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China sec. I (Dec. 7, 2014) [here in after 2014 Position Paper].

22 Awardon Jurisdiction, supra note 1, atpara.148.

23 Id. at. para. 150.

24 Id. at. para. 152.

25 Id. at. para. 153.

26 Id. at. para. 153.

27 This approach might be contrasted with the approach of the Annex VII Tribunalin Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v.Gr.Brit.), PCA Case No. 2011-03, Award (Mar. 18, 2015) which found that the primary dispute underlying some of Mauritius’ submissions was a dispute as to territorial sovereignty: see especially id. at para. 211.

28 SeeAlan E.Boyle, Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction, 46 Int.& Comp. L. Q. 34, 44-45 (1997).

29 See, e.g., Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bol.v. Chile), Preliminary Objection, para. 26 (Sept. 24,2015), and references therein.

30 See Natalie Klein, Expansions and Restrictions in the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Regime: Lessons from Recent Decisions15 Chinese J. Int’l L.403, para. 18 (2016).

31 2014 Position Paper, supra note 21, at sec. I. China made a declaration under Article 298 on 25 August 2006, purporting to exclude all categories of disputes under Article 298 (1)(a)-(c) ofthe Convention from the procedures under Part XV, Section 2.

32 Awardon Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at para. 156.

33 Id. at. para. 157; see also paras. 398-411.

34 Id. at. para. 157.

35 Id. at. paras. 393-396.

36 Reed & Wong, supra note 8; see also, Final Award, supra note 1, at paras. 261-278.

37 Reed & Wong, supra note 8; see also, Final Award, supra note 1, at paras. 643-648.

38 Final Award, supra note 1, at paras. 628-633. For similar reasons, the Tribunal found that the exceptions in Article 297 (3)(a) and Article 298 (1)(b) did not present any obstacle to its jurisdiction: see id.at paras. 694-695, 733-734, 1024-1025.

39 2014 Position Paper, supra note 21, at sec.I.

40 UNCLOS, supra note 3, art.280.

41 UNCLOS, supra note 3, art.281 (1).

42 China-ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea para. 4 (Nov. 4, 2002 (the DOC), quoted in Awardon Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at para. 198.

43 Awardon Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at paras. 212-218.

44 Id. at para. 223.

45 Id. at para. para 223; cf. Southern Bluefin Tuna (N.Z.v. Japan; Austl.v. Japan), Awardon Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 23 RIAA1, 43, para. 57 (Aug. 4, 2000).

46 Awardon Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at para. 224.

47 Awardon Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at para 225.

48 In particular the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, Feb. 24, 1976, 1025 UNTS 319 and the Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 1760 UNTS 79.

49 Awardon Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at paras. 241-248, 265-269, and 281-289.

50 SeeKlein, supra note 30, atpara 11.