前總統馬英九今天表示，常設仲裁法院認定太平島是礁不是島，他非常錯愕與憤怒，絕不接受荒謬不公的國際仲裁，他呼籲政府立即提出具體措施，捍衛中華民國的太平島。
馬英九指出，這個法庭的存在，應該是為國際爭端定紛息爭、避免走上衝突甚至戰爭。但是，這樣的仲裁結果，不但沒有排難解紛，反而增加了衝突的可能。「在背後操控的勢力，看似贏了麵子，其實卻輸了裡子。」
「菲律賓對中國」南海仲裁案，常設仲裁法院今天公布結果，稱中國大陸在9段線範圍內主張的曆史權利沒有法律依據，而南沙群島的所有海上地物，均為礁岩，包括太平島在內。
馬英九晚間在臉書發文表示，從去年12月到今年5月，包括他在內，150多名部會首長、國內外學者專家和國內外媒體，都訪問太平島，親眼見證這個淡水充裕（南沙唯一）、農產豐富、生活機能完整的島嶼，完全符合「聯合國海洋法公約」第121條關於「島嶼」必須「維持人類生存與自身經濟生活」的要件。
他說，至今年4月底為止，也有430篇國際媒體完整陳述「太平島是島」的事實。太平島是「島」不是「礁」，已是國內外多數人的共識。
馬英九指出，70年來，太平島是在中華民國有效統治之下，對地區提供醫療救難等服務，夙有口碑。仲裁法庭裁決之前，既未邀請中華民國谘詢，又未派員親赴現場調查，竟作出這樣違背常理、匪夷所思的裁定。在程序上不公平，在實質上不合理。
他說，更可怕的是，這個把太平島法律地位「降格」的裁定，立即升高了南海的緊張、擴大了原有的對立、侵害了中華民國的權益、破壞了南海的和平，更傷害了仲裁法庭的公正性。
馬英九呼籲，政府立即提出具體措施，捍衛中華民國的太平島，要窮盡一切途徑，表達抗議。讓國際社會知道，太平島是島不是礁，中華民國對這種荒謬不公的仲裁，絕不接受。
馬英九指出，這個法庭的存在，應該是為國際爭端定紛息爭、避免走上衝突甚至戰爭。但是，這樣的仲裁結果，不但沒有排難解紛，反而增加了衝突的可能。「在背後操控的勢力，看似贏了麵子，其實卻輸了裡子。」
「菲律賓對中國」南海仲裁案，常設仲裁法院今天公布結果，稱中國大陸在9段線範圍內主張的曆史權利沒有法律依據，而南沙群島的所有海上地物，均為礁岩，包括太平島在內。
馬英九晚間在臉書發文表示，從去年12月到今年5月，包括他在內，150多名部會首長、國內外學者專家和國內外媒體，都訪問太平島，親眼見證這個淡水充裕（南沙唯一）、農產豐富、生活機能完整的島嶼，完全符合「聯合國海洋法公約」第121條關於「島嶼」必須「維持人類生存與自身經濟生活」的要件。
他說，至今年4月底為止，也有430篇國際媒體完整陳述「太平島是島」的事實。太平島是「島」不是「礁」，已是國內外多數人的共識。
馬英九指出，70年來，太平島是在中華民國有效統治之下，對地區提供醫療救難等服務，夙有口碑。仲裁法庭裁決之前，既未邀請中華民國谘詢，又未派員親赴現場調查，竟作出這樣違背常理、匪夷所思的裁定。在程序上不公平，在實質上不合理。
他說，更可怕的是，這個把太平島法律地位「降格」的裁定，立即升高了南海的緊張、擴大了原有的對立、侵害了中華民國的權益、破壞了南海的和平，更傷害了仲裁法庭的公正性。
馬英九呼籲，政府立即提出具體措施，捍衛中華民國的太平島，要窮盡一切途徑，表達抗議。讓國際社會知道，太平島是島不是礁，中華民國對這種荒謬不公的仲裁，絕不接受。
國際常設仲裁庭南中國海案裁決全文(英文截圖)
(非正式翻譯)
南海仲裁案
(菲律賓共和國 v. 中華人民共和國)
海牙，2016年7月12日
仲裁庭發布裁決
今日，根據《聯合國海洋法公約》(“《公約》”)附件七組成的仲裁庭就菲律賓共和國對中華人民共和國提起的仲裁案作出了一致裁決。
該仲裁案涉及在南海的曆史性權利的作用和海洋權利的淵源、某些島礁的地位及其能夠產生的海洋權利，以及菲律賓聲稱違反了《公約》的中國某些行為的合法性問題。考慮到《公約》對強製爭端解決的限製性規定，仲裁庭強調，它既不對任何涉及陸地領土主權的問題進行裁決，也不劃定當事雙方之間的任何邊界。
中國反複申明“其不接受、不參與由菲律賓單方麵提起的仲裁”。然而，《公約》附件七規定，“爭端一方缺席或不對案件進行辯護，應不妨礙程序的進行”。附件七同時規定，在爭端一方不參與程序的情況下，仲裁庭“必須不但查明對該爭端確有管轄權，而且查明所提要求在事實上和法庭上均確有根據”。因此，在整個程序中，仲裁庭采取了一些步驟驗證菲律賓訴求的正確性，包括要求菲律賓提交進一步的書麵論證，在兩次庭審之前及庭審過程中對菲律賓進行詢問，指定獨立的專家就技術性問題向仲裁庭報告，以及獲取關於南海島礁的曆史性證據並提供給當事雙方予以評論。
通過2014年12月發布的《立場文件》和其他官方聲明，中國明確表示，仲裁庭對本案涉及的事項缺乏管轄權。《公約》第288條規定:“對於法院或法庭是否具有管轄權如果發生爭端，這一問題應由該法院或法庭以裁定解決”。據此，仲裁庭於2015年7月就管轄權和可受理性問題進行了開庭審理，並於2015年10月29日作出了《關於管轄權和可受理性問題的裁決》，其中對一些管轄權問題進行裁決並推遲對其他問題進行進一步審議。2015年11月24日至30日，仲裁庭接著對實體問題進行了開庭審理。
今日的裁決審議了《關於管轄權和可受理性問題的裁決》未決的管轄權問題和仲裁庭有權管轄的菲律賓訴求的實體性問題。根據《公約》第296條和附件七第11條的規定，該裁決具有終局性和拘束力。
曆史性權利和“九段線”：仲裁庭認為，它對當事雙方涉及南海的曆史性權利和海洋權利淵源的爭端具有管轄權。在實體問題上，仲裁庭認為，《公約》對海洋區域的權利作了全麵的分配，考慮了對資源的既存權利的保護，但並未將其納入條約。因此，仲裁庭得出結論，即使中國曾在某種程度上對南海水域的資源享有曆史性權利，這些權利也已經在與《公約》關於專屬經濟區的規定不一致的範圍內歸於消滅。仲裁庭同時指出，盡管曆史上中國以及其他國家的航海者和漁民利用了南海的島嶼，但並無證據顯示曆史上中國對該水域或其資源擁有排他性的控製權。仲裁庭認為，中國對“九段線”內海洋區域的資源主張曆史性權利沒有法律依據。
島礁的地位：仲裁庭接下來審議了海洋區域的權利和島礁的地位。仲裁庭首先評估了中國主張的某些礁石在高潮時是否高於水麵。高潮時高於水麵的島礁能夠產生至少12海裏的領海，而高潮時沒入水中的島礁則不能。仲裁庭注意到，這些礁石已經被填海和建設活動所嚴重改變，重申《公約》基於島礁的自然狀態對其進行歸類,並依據曆史資料對這些島礁進行評估。然後，仲裁庭考慮了中國主張的任一島礁能否產生超過12海裏的海洋區域。根據《公約》，島嶼能夠產生200海裏的專屬經濟區和大陸架，但是“不能維持人類居住或其本身的經濟生活的岩礁，不應有專屬經濟區或大陸架”。仲裁庭認為，這項規定取決於一個島礁在自然狀態下，維持一個穩定的人類社群或者不依賴於外來資源或純采掘業的經濟活動的客觀承載力。仲裁庭注意到，現在很多島礁上駐紮的政府人員依賴於外來的支持，不能反映這些島礁的承載力。仲裁庭認為曆史證據更具有相關性，並注意到曆史上小規模的漁民曾經利用南沙群島，且有若幹在其上建立日本漁業和肥料開采企業的嚐試。仲裁庭認定，這種短暫的利用並不構成穩定的人類社群的定居，且曆史上所有的經濟活動都是純采掘性的。據此，仲裁庭得出結論，認為南沙群島無一能夠產生延伸的海洋區域。仲裁庭還認為南沙群島不能夠作為一個整體共同產生海洋區域。在認定中國主張的島礁無一能夠產生專屬經濟區之後，仲裁庭認為它可以在不劃分邊界的情況下裁定某些海洋區域位於菲律賓的專屬經濟區內，因為這些區域與中國任何可能的權利並不重疊。
中國行為的合法性：仲裁庭接下來審議了中國在南海行為的合法性。在認定特定區域位於菲律賓的專屬經濟區的基礎上，仲裁庭裁定中國的以下行為違法了菲律賓在其專屬經濟區享有的主權權利：（a）妨礙菲律賓的捕魚和石油開采；（b）建設人工島嶼；（c）未阻止中國漁民在該區域的捕魚活動。仲裁庭還認為，菲律賓漁民（如中國漁民一樣）在黃岩島有傳統的漁業權利，而中國限製其進入該區域從而妨礙了這些權利的行使。仲裁庭進一步認為，中國執法船對菲律賓船隻進行攔截的行為非法地造成了嚴重的碰撞危險。
對海洋環境的損害:仲裁庭考慮了中國近期在南沙群島七個島礁上的大規模填海和人工島嶼建設對海洋環境的影響，查明中國對珊瑚礁環境造成了嚴重損害，違反了其保全和保護脆弱的生態係統以及衰竭、受威脅或有滅絕危險的物種的生存環境的義務。仲裁庭還查明，中國官方對中國漁民在南海（使用對珊瑚礁環境造成嚴重損害的方法）大量捕撈有滅絕危險的海龜，珊瑚及大硨磲的行為知情，卻未履行其阻止此類活動的義務。
爭端的加劇：最後，仲裁庭審議了中國自本仲裁啟動之後的行為是否加劇了當事雙方之間的爭端。仲裁庭裁定，它對菲律賓海軍與中國海軍和執法船隻在仁愛礁的對峙可能造成的後果沒有管轄權進行審議，因為此項爭端涉及軍事活動，因此為強製爭端解決所排除。但是，仲裁庭認為，中國近期大規模的填海和建設人工島嶼的活動不符合締約國在爭端解決程序中的義務，因為中國對海洋環境造成了不可恢複的損害，在菲律賓專屬經濟區內建設大規模的人工島嶼，並破壞了構成雙方部分爭端的南海島礁自然狀態的證據。
下文為仲裁庭裁決的擴展摘要。
本案仲裁庭於2013 年6 月21 日根據《公約》附件七規定的程序組成，以對菲律賓提交的爭端進行裁決。本案仲裁庭由加納籍法官Thomas A. Mensah，法國籍法官Jean-Pierre Cot，波蘭籍法官Stanislaw Pawlak，荷蘭籍教授Alfred H.A. Soons 和德國籍法官Rüdigerolfrum 組成。Thomas A. Mensah 法官擔任首席仲裁員。常設仲裁法院擔任本案的書記處。
關於本案的更多信息，包括《關於管轄權和可受理性問題的裁決》、《程序規則》和早先新聞稿以及庭審記錄和照片，請www.pcacases.com/web/view/7。程序令、菲律賓的訴求、仲裁庭專家的報告和仲裁庭裁決的非官方中譯文將在之後適時發布。
常設仲裁法院背景資料
常設仲裁法院是根據1899 年海牙《和平解決國際爭端公約》成立的政府間組織。常設仲裁法院共有121 個成員國，總部位於荷蘭海牙的和平宮。常設仲裁法院為國家、國家實體、政府間組織、私人主體間的仲裁、調解、事實調查以及其他爭端解決程序提供服務。常設仲裁法院國際局目前為8 個國家間仲裁案件，73 個國際投資仲裁案件，以及34 個涉及國家或其他公共主體的合同仲裁案件提供書記處服務。常設仲裁法院共管理過12 個主權國家在《聯
合國海洋法公約》附件七下提起的仲裁案。
2013 年7 月，南海仲裁案的仲裁庭指定常設仲裁法院作為案件的書記處。仲裁庭的《程序規則》規定，常設仲裁法院應當“為仲裁程序提供檔案管理，並根據仲裁庭指令提供適當的書記處服務”。這些服務包括協助查找和指定專家；發布關於仲裁案的信息和發布新聞稿；組織在海牙和平宮進行庭審；管理案件財務，包括管理案件費用保證金，例如支付仲裁員，專家，技術支持人員和庭審記錄員的費用等。書記處也為當事方，仲裁庭和觀察員國之間提供官方交流渠道。
仲裁庭關於管轄權和菲律賓訴求的實體問題的裁決摘要
1. 仲裁案的背景
菲律賓和中國間的南海仲裁案涉及菲律賓對其與中國在南海關係的四個事項進行裁決的請求。第一，菲律賓請求仲裁庭對當事雙方在南海的權利和義務淵源，以及《聯合國海洋法公約》（“《公約》”）對中國在所謂的“九段線”內主張的曆史性權利的效力作出裁決。第二，菲律賓請求仲裁庭裁定某些被菲律賓和中國同時主張的島礁能否被恰當地定義為《公約》下的島嶼，礁石，低潮高地或者水下地物。這些島礁在《公約》下的地位決定它們所能產生的海洋區域。第三，菲律賓請求仲裁庭裁定中國在南海的某些活動是否違反了《公約》的規定，包括妨礙菲律賓行使《公約》下的主權權利和自由或者進行損害海洋環境的建設和漁業活動。最後，菲律賓請求仲裁庭裁定中國的某些行為，尤其是自本仲裁啟動之後在南沙群島大規模填海和建設人工島嶼的活動，非法地加劇並擴大了雙方之間的爭端。
中國政府在此前進行的一係列程序中堅持不接受、不參與仲裁的立場，並在其外交照會、2014年12月7日發布的《中華人民共和國政府關於菲律賓共和國所提南海仲裁案管轄權問題的立場文件》（“中國《立場文件》”）、中國駐荷蘭王國大使至仲裁庭成員的信函以及多次的公開聲明中重申了這一立場。中國政府同時明確表示，這些聲明和文件“決不得被解釋為中國以任何形式參與仲裁程序”。
《公約》的以下兩個條款規定了爭端一方反對法庭的管轄權但是拒絕參與程序的情況：
（a） 《公約》第288條規定:“對於法院或法庭是否具有管轄權如果發生爭端，這一問題應由該法院或法庭以裁定解決”。
（b） 《公約》附件七第9條規定:“如爭端一方不出庭或對案件不進行辯護，他方可請示仲裁法庭繼續進行程序並作出裁決。爭端一方缺席或不對案件進行辯護，應不妨礙程序的進行。仲裁法庭在作出裁決前，必須不但查明對該爭端確有管轄權，而且查明所提要求在事實上和法庭上均確有根據”。
在整個仲裁程序中，仲裁庭采取了一些步驟以履行查明其是否具有管轄權以及菲律賓的訴求是否“在事實上和法庭上均確有根據”的義務。關於管轄權，仲裁庭決定將中國的非正式函文視為等同於對管轄權的異議，並於2015年7月7日至13日進行了管轄權和可受理性問題的開庭審理。仲裁庭在庭審之前及庭審過程中就管轄權問題向菲律賓提問，其中包括中國非正式函文中沒有提出的潛在問題，並於2015年10月29日發布了《關於管轄權和可受理性問題的裁決》（“《管轄權裁決》”），對一些管轄權問題作出了裁決並推遲將其他問題進一步與菲律賓訴求的實體問題一同審議。關於實體問題，為了驗證菲律賓的訴求的正確性，仲裁庭要求菲律賓提交進一步書麵陳述，於2015年11月24至30日對實體問題進行開庭審理，並在庭審之前和庭審過程中就菲律賓訴求向其提問。仲裁庭還指定獨立的專家就技術性問題向仲裁庭報告，從英國水文辦公室、法國國家圖書館、法國國家海外檔案館的檔案中獲取南海的曆史記錄和水文測量數據，並與其它公共領域的相關資料一起提供給當事雙方進行評論。
2. 雙方立場
菲律賓在仲裁過程中共提出了15項訴求，請求仲裁庭裁定：
（1） 中國在南海的海洋權利，如菲律賓一樣，不能超過《聯合國海洋法公約》明文允許的範圍；
（2） 中國主張的對“九段線”範圍內的南海海域的主權權利和管轄權以及“曆史性權利”與《公約》相違背，這些主張在超過《公約》明文允許的中國海洋權利的地理和實體限製的範圍內不具有法律效力；
（3） 黃岩島不能產生專屬經濟區或者大陸架；
（4） 美濟礁、仁愛礁和渚碧礁為低潮高地，不能產生領海、專屬經濟區或者大陸架，並且為不能夠通過先占或其他方式取得的島礁；
（5） 美濟礁和仁愛礁為菲律賓專屬經濟區和大陸架的一部分；
（6） 南薰礁和西門礁（包括東門礁）為低潮高地，不能產生領海、專屬經濟區或者大陸架，但是它們的低潮線可以作為分別測量鴻庥島和景宏島的領海寬度的基線；
（7） 赤瓜礁、華陽礁和永暑礁不能產生專屬經濟區或者大陸架；
（8） 中國非法地妨礙了菲律賓享有和行使其對專屬經濟區和大陸架的生物和非生物資源的主權權利；
（9） 中國非法地未曾阻止其公民和船隻開發菲律賓專屬經濟區內的生物資源；
（10） 通過妨礙其在黃岩島的傳統漁業活動，中國非法地阻止了菲律賓漁民尋求生計；
（11） 中國在黃岩島、仁愛礁、華陽礁、永暑礁、南薰礁、赤瓜礁、東門礁和渚碧礁違反了《公約》下保護和保全海洋環境的義務；
（12） 中國對美濟礁的占領和建造活動：
(a) 違反了《公約》關於人工島嶼，設施和結構的規定；
(b) 違反了中國在《公約》下保護和保全海洋環境的義務；以及
(c) 構成違反《公約》規定的試圖據為己有的違法行為；
（13） 中國危險地操作其執法船隻給在黃岩島附近航行的菲律賓船隻造成嚴重碰撞危險的行為違反了其在《公約》下的義務；
（14） 自從2013年1月仲裁開始，中國非法地加劇並擴大了爭端，包括：
(a) 妨礙菲律賓在仁愛礁海域及其附近海域的航行權利；
(b) 阻止菲律賓在仁愛礁駐紮人員的輪換和補給；
(c) 危害菲律賓在仁愛礁駐紮人員的健康和福利；以及
(d) 在美濟礁、華陽礁、永暑礁、南薰礁、赤瓜礁、東門礁和渚碧礁從事挖沙填海和人工島嶼的建造和建設活動；以及
（15） 中國應該尊重菲律賓在《公約》下的權利和自由，遵守其在《公約》下的義務，包括保護和保全南海海洋環境的義務；同時，在行使其在南海的權利和自由時，應該對菲律賓在《公約》下的權利和自由予以適當考慮。
關於管轄權，菲律賓請求仲裁庭宣布菲律賓的訴求“完全在其管轄權範圍內並且具有完全的可受理性”。
中國不接受不參與仲裁，但已經表明了其認為仲裁庭“對此案不具有管轄權”的立場。在其《立場文件》中，中國闡述了以下立場：
- 菲律賓提請仲裁事項的實質是南海部分島礁的領土主權問題，超出《公約》的調整範圍，不涉及《公約》的解釋或適用；
- 以談判方式解決有關爭端是中菲兩國通過雙邊文件和《南海各方行為宣言》所達成的協議，菲律賓單方麵將中菲有關爭端提交強製仲裁違反國際法；
- 即使菲律賓提出的仲裁事項涉及有關《公約》解釋或適用的問題，也構成中菲兩國海域劃界不可分割的組成部分，而中國已根據《公約》的規定於2006年作出聲明，將涉及海域劃界等事項的爭端排除適用仲裁等強製爭端解決程序；
盡管中國未對菲律賓主要訴求的實體問題作出同等的聲明，但在整個仲裁程序中，仲裁庭力圖通過中國同時期公開發表的聲明和外交函件確定其立場。
3. 仲裁庭關於管轄權範圍的裁決
關於仲裁庭對菲律賓訴求的管轄權的範圍，仲裁庭在《管轄權裁決》中闡述了可作為初步事項決定的管轄權問題，並在2016年7月12日的裁決中闡述了與菲律賓訴求中與實體問題相交織的管轄權問題。仲裁庭2016年7月12日的裁決包含並確認了《管轄權裁決》中關於管轄權的裁決。
為保證完整性，此摘要包括仲裁庭在兩個裁決中關於管轄權的決定。
a. 初步事項
在《管轄權裁決》中，仲裁庭闡述了一係列關於管轄權的初步事項。仲裁庭注意到菲律賓與中國均為《公約》締約國，以及《公約》不允許締約國一般性地將自身排除出《公約》規定的爭端解決機製。仲裁庭認為中國的不參與並不剝奪仲裁庭的管轄權，仲裁庭依照《公約》附件七的規定（其中包括在一方缺席的情況下組成仲裁庭的規定）正當組成。最後，仲裁庭認為僅僅單方麵提起仲裁這一行為不能構成對《公約》的濫用，因此未同意中國《立場文件》中相關的該項反對意見。
b. 涉及對《公約》解釋和適用的爭端的存在
在《管轄權裁決》中，仲裁庭審議了當事雙方的爭端是否涉及對《公約》的解釋和適用，因其是訴諸《公約》的爭端解決機製的必要條件。
仲裁庭不支持中國《立場文件》中關於當事雙方的爭端實際上是關於領土主權的爭端因而不是涉及《公約》的事項的意見。仲裁庭接受當事雙方存在關於南海島嶼主權的爭端，但是認為菲律賓提交仲裁的事項並不涉及主權問題。仲裁庭認為，審議菲律賓的訴求並不需要隱含地判定主權問題，並且審議這些問題並不會促進任何一方在南海島嶼主權上的主張。
仲裁庭同樣不支持中國《立場文件》中關於當事雙方的爭端實質上是關於海洋劃界的爭端，並因此被《公約》第298條和中國在2006年8月25日據此作出的聲明排除出爭端解決程序的意見。仲裁庭注意到，一項涉及一個國家對於某海洋區域是否可主張權利的爭端與對重疊海洋區域進行劃界是不同的問題。仲裁庭注意到，權利主張以及許多其他問題在邊界劃分中常常被審議，但是他們也可能在其他一些情況中出現。仲裁庭認為，這並不意味著一個爭端一旦涉及其中一項問題則必然地成為一個關於劃界的爭端。
最後，仲裁庭認為菲律賓的每一項主張均反映了一個涉及《公約》的爭端。據此，仲裁庭強調(a)一個涉及《公約》和其他權利（包括任何中國的“曆史性權利”）相互關係的爭端為涉及《公約》的爭端以及（b）在中國未明確陳述其立場的情況下，可以通過國家行為或者沉默來客觀地推斷爭端的存在。
c. 必要第三方的參加
在《管轄權裁決》中，仲裁庭考慮了如果其他對南海島嶼提出主張的國家不參與本仲裁是否會構成對仲裁庭行使管轄權的障礙。仲裁庭提出其他國家的權利不會成為“裁決的主題事項”， 這也是判定必要第三方的標準。仲裁庭進一步指出，在2014年12月，越南向仲裁庭提交了一份聲明，聲稱其“不懷疑仲裁庭對這些程序的管轄權”。仲裁庭還指出，越南、馬來西亞以及印度尼西亞以觀察國的身份參加了關於管轄權問題的庭審，而在庭審中沒有任何一個國家提出其自身的參與是必要的。
在2016年7月12日的裁決中，仲裁庭指出其在2016年6月12日收到了來自馬來西亞的函文，回顧了馬來西亞在南海的主張。仲裁庭比較了馬來西亞的權利主張和其針對菲律賓訴求的實體問題裁決，確認了其關於馬來西亞不是必要第三方以及馬來西亞在南海的權利不妨礙其審議菲律賓的訴求的結論。
d. 管轄權的先決條件
在《管轄權裁決》中，仲裁庭考慮了《公約》第281和282條的適用性問題。根據這兩條的規定，如果一個國家已經同意通過其他方法解決爭端，則其可能被禁止使用《公約》規定的機製。
仲裁庭未接受中國《立場文件》中關於2002中國-東盟《南海各方共同行為宣言》導致菲律賓不被允許提起仲裁的意見。仲裁庭認為該《宣言》為不具有法律拘束力的政治性協議，該協議並未提供有拘束力的爭端解決機製，並未排除其他爭端解決方法，因此並不限製仲裁庭在第281和282條下的管轄權。仲裁庭同樣審議了《東南亞友好合作條約》、《生物多樣性公約》以及菲律賓和中國發表的一係列通過協商解決爭端的聯合聲明，並得出結論，認為這些文件中沒有任何一個構成禁止菲律賓將其訴求提起仲裁的協議。
仲裁庭進一步指出，在菲律賓提起仲裁之前，當事方已經根據公約第283條的要求就其爭端的解決交換了意見。仲裁庭作出結論，認為菲律賓和中國的外交交流記錄已經滿足了這一要求，在這些記錄中菲律賓表示了對包括其他南海周邊國家的多邊談判的明確偏好，而中國堅持其隻考慮進行雙邊談判。
e. 管轄權的例外和限製
在2016年7月12日的裁決中，仲裁庭考慮了菲律賓關於中國曆史性權利以及“九段線”的訴求是否受到《公約》第298條關於涉及“曆史性所有權”的爭端作為管轄權的例外的規定的影響。仲裁庭審議了海洋法上“曆史性所有權”的涵義，並認為其指示的是對海灣以及其他近岸水域主張的曆史性主權。在審議了中國在南海的主張和行為之後，仲裁庭得出了中國主張對“九段線”內資源的曆史權利，而非對南海水域的曆史性所有權的結論。因此，仲裁庭認為其對審議菲律賓涉及曆史性權利的訴求及與中國之間涉及“九段線”的訴求具有管轄權。
在2016年7月12日的裁決中，仲裁庭還審議了菲律賓的訴求是否受到《公約》第298條關於涉及海洋劃界的爭端的例外的影響。在《管轄權裁決》中，仲裁庭已經認定了菲律賓的訴求本身並不涉及邊界劃分，但是也指出了某些菲律賓的訴求取決於部分區域是否為菲律賓專屬經濟區的組成部分。仲裁庭認為其隻能在中國絕無可能存在與菲律賓重疊的專屬經濟區主
張的情況下才能審議這些問題，並推遲了對這些管轄權問題作出最後結論。在2016年7月12日的裁決中，仲裁庭審議了關於中國在南海主張的島礁的證據，並得出這些島礁均不能產生專屬經濟區主張的結論。因為中國並無在南沙群島與菲律賓產生重疊專屬經濟區主張的可能，仲裁庭認為菲律賓的訴求並不取決於在先的劃界。
在2016年7月12日的裁決中，仲裁庭還審議了菲律賓的訴求是否受到《公約》第298條關於涉及在專屬經濟區的法律執行活動的爭端的例外的影響。仲裁庭指出第298條的例外隻有在菲律賓的訴求涉及中國的專屬經濟區內的法律執行活動的情況下方可適用。因為菲律賓的訴求隻與菲律賓自身的專屬經濟區或者領海內的事件有關，仲裁庭的結論指出第298條不妨礙其行使管轄權。
最後，在2016年7月12日的裁決中，仲裁庭審議了菲律賓的訴求是否受到《公約》第298條關於涉及軍事活動的爭端的例外的影響。仲裁庭認為菲律賓海軍和中國海軍以及執法船在仁愛礁的對峙構成軍事活動，並得出其對菲律賓第14(a)-(c)項的訴求不具有管轄權的結論。仲裁庭還審議了中國在七個南沙群島的島礁上進行填海和人工島嶼建設的活動是否構成軍事活動的問題，但注意到中國堅持強調其行為的非軍事性以及最高層表示中國將不會軍事化其在南沙的存在。仲裁庭決定，在中國自身反複強調相反的立場的情況下，其將不把這些活動視為軍事性質。因此，仲裁庭得出結論，即第298條不妨礙其行使管轄權。
4. 仲裁庭對菲律賓訴求的實體問題的裁決
a. “九段線”以及中國對南海海域的曆史性權利
在2016年7月12日的裁決中，仲裁庭審議了中國“九段線”的影響以及中國是否在依照《公約》規定享有的海洋區域限製之外對南海資源享有曆史性權利。
仲裁庭審議了《公約》的曆史及其關於海洋區域的規定，認定《公約》意在全麵分配締約國對海洋區域的權利。仲裁庭注意到在創設專屬經濟區的談判對資源（特別是漁業資源）的既存權利問題進行了詳細的討論，一些國家希望在新區域內保留曆史性漁業權利。然而這一立場最後被拒絕，而《公約》的最終版本隻為其他國家在專屬經濟區內保留了有限的獲取漁業資源的權利（在沿海國沒有能力捕撈全部可捕量的情況下），並且沒有保留任何對石油或者礦業資源的權利。仲裁庭認為中國對資源的曆史性權利主張與《公約》對權利和海洋區域具體化的劃分不相適應，並得出結論，即使中國在南海水域範圍內對資源享有曆史性權利，這些權利也在與《公約》的海洋區域係統不相符合的範圍內，已經隨著《公約》的生效而歸於消滅。
為了確定中國是否在《公約》生效之前對南海的資源享有曆史性權利，仲裁庭也審議了曆史記錄。盡管仲裁庭強調其無權決定島嶼的主權問題，仲裁庭指出，有證據表明中國和其他國家的航海者和漁民在曆史上利用過南海的島嶼。然而，仲裁庭認為在《公約》之前，在領海之外的南海海域在法律上是公海的一部分，任何國家的船隻均可自由航行和捕魚。因此，仲裁庭得出結論，中國曆史上在南海海域的航行和捕魚反映的是對公海自由而非曆史性權利的行使，並且沒有證據表明中國曆史上對南海海域行使排他性的控製或者阻止了其他國家對資源的開發。
因此，仲裁庭得出結論，在菲律賓與中國之間，中國並無在《公約》規定的權利範圍之外，主張對“九段線”之內海域的資源享有曆史性權利的法律基礎。
b. 南海島礁的地位
在2016年7月12日的裁決中，仲裁庭審議了南海島礁的地位以及中國根據《公約》可以潛在地主張的海洋區域。
仲裁庭首先進行了對部分中國主張的珊瑚礁在高潮時是否高於水麵的技術性評估。根據《公約》第13條和121條，高潮時高於水麵的島礁至少可以產生一個12海裏的領海，而高潮時沒入水中的島礁不能產生任何海洋權利。仲裁庭注意到南海的許多礁石被最近的填海和建設活動嚴重改變，並指出《公約》以自然狀態為基礎對島礁進行分類。仲裁庭指定了一位水文地理專家協助評估菲律賓的技術性證據，並在評估島礁的過程中大量依賴了檔案資料和曆史水文地理調查。仲裁庭同意菲律賓關於在自然狀態下黃岩島、赤瓜礁、華陽礁和永暑礁為高潮時高於水麵的島礁以及渚碧礁、東門礁、美濟礁以及仁愛礁為高潮時沒入水中的島礁的觀點。然而，仲裁庭不同意菲律賓對南薰礁（北）和西門礁地位的界定，並判定他們均為高潮時高於水麵的島礁。
仲裁庭之後審議了中國所主張的任一島礁是否可以產生超過12海裏的海洋區域的問題。根據《公約》第121條，島嶼可以產生一個200海裏的專屬經濟區和大陸架的權利，但是“不能維持人類居住或其本身的經濟生活的岩礁，不應有專屬經濟區或大陸架”。仲裁庭注意到，這項規定與創設專屬經濟區之後沿海國管轄權的擴張密切相關，其意圖在於防止微不足道的島礁產生大麵積的海洋權利而侵犯有人定居的領土的權利或者侵犯公海以及作為人類的共同繼承財產保留的海床的區域。仲裁庭對第121條進行解釋並得出結論，認為對一個島礁的權利主張取決於（a）該島礁的客觀承載力；（b）在自然狀態下，是否能夠維持（c）一個穩定的人類社群或者（d）不依賴外來資源或純采掘業的經濟活動。
仲裁庭注意到南沙群島的許多島礁目前正被不同的沿海國控製，且這些沿海國在其上建立了設施並駐紮了人員。仲裁庭認為這些現代化存在依賴於外來資源和支持，並注意到，通過包括填海和建設基礎設施如海水淡化工廠等方式，許多島礁被加以改變以便加強其可居住性。仲裁庭認為，目前官方人員在許多島礁上的駐紮並不能證明它們在自然狀態下維持穩定的人類社群的能力，並且認為關於人來居住或者經濟生活的曆史證據與這些島礁的客觀承載力更為相關。在審查了曆史記錄之後，仲裁庭指出南沙群島在曆史上被小規模的中國和其他國家的漁民所利用，並且在1920和30年代也有在其上建立日本漁業和肥料開采企業的嚐試。仲裁庭認定漁民對這些島礁的短暫的利用不能構成穩定的人類社群的定居，以及曆史上所有的經濟活動都是純采掘性的。因此，仲裁庭得出結論，認為南沙群島的所有高潮時高於水麵的島礁（例如包括太平島、中業島、西月島、南威島、北子島、南子島）在法律上均為無法產生專屬經濟區或者大陸架的“岩礁”。
仲裁庭還認為，《公約》並未規定如南沙群島的一係列島嶼可以作為一個整體共同產生海洋區域。
c. 中國在南海的活動
在2016年7月12日的裁決中，仲裁庭審議了中國在南海一係列活動在《公約》下的合法性。
在認定美濟礁、仁愛礁以及禮樂灘在高潮時沒入水中，構成菲律賓專屬經濟區和大陸架的一部分且不與中國任何可能的權利主張相重疊之後，仲裁庭得出結論，認為《公約》在菲律賓專屬經濟區海域內對主權權利的分配是明確的。作為事實問題，仲裁庭查明中國（a）幹擾了菲律賓在禮樂灘的石油開采，（b）試圖阻止菲律賓漁船在其專屬經濟區內捕魚，（c）保護並不阻止中國漁民在美濟礁和仁愛礁附近的菲律賓專屬經濟區捕魚，以及（d）未經菲律賓許可在美濟礁建設設施和人工島嶼。仲裁庭因此得出結論認為中國侵犯了菲律賓對其專屬
經濟區和大陸架的主權權利。
仲裁庭接下來審查了在黃岩島的傳統漁業活動，並發現菲律賓的漁民，以及中國和其他國家的漁民，長期以來保持在黃岩島及其周圍區域捕魚的傳統。因為黃岩島在高潮時高於水麵，它可以產生對領海的主張，其周邊海域不構成專屬經濟區的一部分，傳統漁業權利也並未被《公約》所消滅。雖然仲裁庭強調其不會決定黃岩島的主權歸屬，但是仲裁庭認為中國在2012年5月之後限製菲律賓漁民接近黃岩島的行為違反了尊重他們傳統漁業權利的義務。然而，仲裁庭也指出，如果菲律賓阻止中國漁民在黃岩島捕魚，其將針對中國漁民的傳統漁業權利得出同樣的結論。
仲裁庭也審議了中國的活動對海洋環境的影響。在此過程中，仲裁庭指定了三位獨立的珊瑚礁生物學專家來協助其評估現有的科學證據以及菲律賓的專家報告。仲裁庭認為中國近期在南沙群島七個島礁大規模的填海和人工島嶼建設活動導致了對珊瑚礁環境的嚴重破壞，違反了中國在《公約》第192和194條下關於脆弱的生態係統以及衰竭、受威脅或有滅絕危險的物種的生存環境的保護和保全海洋環境的義務。仲裁庭同時認為中國漁民在南海以對珊瑚礁環境產生嚴重破壞的方法大量捕撈有滅絕危險的海龜、珊瑚以及大硨磲。仲裁庭查明中國官方對這些活動知情，但卻未能盡到《公約》下的勤勉義務予以阻止。
最後，仲裁庭審議了中國執法船於2012年4月和5月在黃岩島附近兩次試圖阻止菲律賓船隻接近或者進入黃岩島的行為的合法性。在此過程中，仲裁庭指定了一位航行安全方麵的獨立專家協助其審查菲律賓船隻上的官員提供的書麵報告以及菲律賓提供的航行安全方麵的專家報告。仲裁庭認為中國執法船多次高速接近菲律賓船隻並試圖近距離從前方通過，製造了嚴重的碰撞危險以及對菲律賓船隻和人員的危險。仲裁庭結論認為中國違反了其在《1972年國際海上避碰規則公約》下以及《公約》第94條下關於海上安全的義務。
d. 加劇當事方爭端
在2016年7月12日的裁決中，仲裁庭審議了在仲裁開始之後，中國近期在南沙群島七個島礁上大規模的填海和人工島嶼建設活動是否加劇了當事方爭端。仲裁庭重申在爭端解決過程中，該爭端的當事方有義務防止該爭端的加劇和擴大。仲裁庭指出中國（a）在位於菲律賓專屬經濟區內的低潮高地美濟礁建設了大規模的人工島嶼；（b）對珊瑚礁生態係統造成了永久的，不可恢複的破壞以及（c）永久性地消滅了關於相關島礁自然狀態的證據。仲裁庭得出結論，認為中國違反了在爭端解決過程中爭端當事方防止爭端的加劇和擴大的義務。
e. 爭端雙方將來的行為
最後，仲裁庭審議了菲律賓關於作出中國未來應當尊重菲律賓的權利和自由並遵守其《公約》下的義務的聲明的請求。對此，仲裁庭指出菲律賓和中國雙方均反複強調接受根據《公約》以及一般誠意義務定義和規製其行為。仲裁庭認為本仲裁涉及爭端的根源並不在於中國或者菲律賓意圖侵犯對方的合法權利，而在於雙方對各自基於《公約》在南海的權利有根本性的理解分歧。仲裁庭指出，惡意之不可推定為國際法的基本原則，並指出附件七第11條規定“爭端各方均應遵守裁決”。仲裁庭因此認為無進一步聲明之必要。
國際常設仲裁庭南中國海案裁決英文全文：
THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION (THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)
The Hague, 12 July 2016
The Tribunal Renders Its Award
A unanimous Award has been issued today by the Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the “Convention”) in the arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against the People’s Republic of China.
This arbitration concerned the role of historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain maritime features and the maritime entitlements they are capable of generating, and the lawfulness of certain actions by China that were alleged by the Philippines to violate the Convention. In light of limitations on compulsory dispute settlement under the Convention, the Tribunal has emphasized that it does not rule on any question of sovereignty over land territory and does not delimit any boundary between the Parties.
China has repeatedly stated that “it will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines.” Annex VII, however, provides that the “[a]bsence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings.” Annex VII also provides that, in the event that a party does not participate in the proceedings, a tribunal “must satisfy itself not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law.” Accordingly, throughout these proceedings, the Tribunal has taken steps to test the accuracy of the Philippines’ claims, including by requesting further written submissions from the Philippines, by questioning the Philippines both prior to and during two hearings, by appointing independent experts to report to the Tribunal on technical matters, and by obtaining historical evidence concerning features in the South China Sea and providing it to the Parties for comment.
China has also made clear—through the publication of a Position Paper in December 2014 and in other official statements—that, in its view, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in this matter. Article 288 of the Convention provides that: “In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.” Accordingly, the Tribunal convened a hearing on jurisdiction and admissibility in July 2015 and rendered an Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 29 October 2015, deciding some issues of jurisdiction and deferring others for further consideration. The Tribunal then convened a hearing on the merits from 24 to 30 November 2015.
The Award of today’s date addresses the issues of jurisdiction not decided in the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility and the merits of the Philippines’ claims over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The Award is final and binding, as set out in Article 296 of the Convention and Article 11 of Annex VII.
Historic Rights and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’: The Tribunal found that it has jurisdiction to consider the Parties’ dispute concerning historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea. On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention comprehensively allocates rights to maritime areas and that protections for pre-existing rights to resources were considered, but not adopted in the Convention. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention. The Tribunal also noted that, although
Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources. 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’.
Status of Features: The Tribunal next considered entitlements to maritime areas and the status of features. The Tribunal first undertook an evaluation of whether certain reefs claimed by China are above water at high tide. Features that are above water at high tide generate an entitlement to at least a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, whereas features that are submerged at high tide do not. The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and relied on historical materials in evaluating the features. The Tribunal then considered whether any of the features claimed by China could generate maritime zones beyond 12 nautical miles. Under the Convention, islands generate an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and a continental shelf, but “[r]ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” The Tribunal concluded that this provision depends upon the objective capacity of a feature, in its natural condition, to sustain either a stable community of people or economic activity that is not dependent on outside resources or purely extractive in nature. The Tribunal noted that the current presence of official personnel on many of the features is dependent on outside support and not reflective of the capacity of the features. The Tribunal found historical evidence to be more relevant and noted that the Spratly Islands were historically used by small groups of fishermen and that several Japanese fishing and guano mining enterprises were attempted. The Tribunal concluded that such transient use does not constitute inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones. The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit. 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.
Lawfulness of Chinese Actions: The Tribunal next considered the lawfulness of Chinese actions in the South China Sea. Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone. The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like those from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting access. The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels.
Harm to Marine Environment: The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands and found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species. The Tribunal also found that Chinese authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have harvested endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities.
Aggravation of Dispute: Finally, the Tribunal considered whether China’s actions since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties. The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second Thomas Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory settlement. The Tribunal found, however, that China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties’ dispute.
An expanded summary of the Tribunal’s decisions is set out below.
The Tribunal was constituted on 21 June 2013 pursuant to the procedure set out in Annex VII of the
Convention to decide the dispute presented by the Philippines. The Tribunal is composed of Judge Thomas A.
Mensah of Ghana, Judge Jean-Pierre Cot of France, Judge Stanislaw Pawlak of Poland, Professor Alfred
H.A. Soons of the Netherlands, and Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum of Germany. Judge Thomas A. Mensah serves as President of the Tribunal. The Permanent Court of Arbitration acts as the Registry in the proceedings.
Further information about the case may be found at www.pcacases.com/web/view/7, including the Award on
Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Rules of Procedure, earlier Press Releases, hearing transcripts, and photographs. Procedural Orders, submissions by the Philippines, and reports by the Tribunal’s experts will be made available in due course, as will unofficial Chinese translations of the Tribunal’s Awards.
Background to the Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization established by the
1899 Hague Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The PCA has 121 Member
States. Headquartered at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands, the PCA facilitates arbitration, conciliation, fact-finding, and other dispute resolution proceedings among various combinations of States,
State entities, intergovernmental organizations, and private parties. The PCA’s International Bureau is currently administering 8 interstate disputes, 73 investor-State arbitrations, and 34 cases arising under contracts involving a State or other public entity. The PCA has administered 12 cases initiated by States under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
In July 2013, the Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration appointed the PCA to serve as Registry for the proceedings. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that the PCA shall “maintain an archive of the arbitral proceedings and provide appropriate registry services as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal.” Such services include assisting with the identification and appointment of experts; publishing information about the arbitration and issuing press releases; organizing the hearings at the Peace Palace in The Hague; and the financial management of the case, which involves holding a deposit for expenses in the arbitration, such as to pay arbitrator fees, experts, technical support, court reporters etc. The Registry also serves as the channel of communications amongst the Parties and the Tribunal and observer States.
Photograph: Hearing in session, July 2015, Peace Palace, The Hague. Clockwise from top left: Registrar and PCA Senior Legal Counsel Judith Levine; Judge Stanislaw Pawlak; Professor Alfred H. A. Soons; Judge
Thomas A. Mensah (Presiding Arbitrator); Judge Jean-Pierre Cot; Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum; PCA Senior
Legal Counsel Garth Schofield; former Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, Mr. Albert F. Del
Rosario; former Solicitor General Mr. Florin T. Hilbay, Counsel for the Philippines; Mr. Paul S. Reichler;
Professor Philippe Sands; Professor Bernard H. Oxman; Professor Alan E. Boyle; Mr. Lawrence H. Martin.
SUMMARY OF THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISIONS ON ITS JURISDICTION AND ON THE MERITS OF THE PHILIPPINES’ CLAIMS
1. Background to the Arbitration
The South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines and China concerned an application by the Philippines for rulings in respect of four matters concerning the relationship between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea. First, the Philippines sought a ruling on the source of the Parties’ rights and obligations in the South China Sea and the effect of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“Convention”) on China’s claims to historic rights within its so-called ‘nine-dash line’. Second, the Philippines sought a ruling on whether certain maritime features claimed by both China and the Philippines are properly characterized as islands, rocks, low-tide elevations or submerged banks under the Convention. The status of these features under the Convention determines the maritime zones they are capable of generating. Third, the Philippines sought rulings on whether certain Chinese actions in the South China Sea have violated the Convention, by interfering with the exercise of the Philippines’ sovereign rights and freedoms under the Convention or through construction and fishing activities that have harmed the marine environment. Finally, the Philippines sought a ruling that certain actions taken by China, in particular its large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands since this arbitration was commenced, have unlawfully aggravated and extended the Parties’ dispute.
The Chinese Government has adhered to the position of neither accepting nor participating in these arbitral proceedings. It has reiterated this position in diplomatic notes, in the “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” dated 7 December 2014 (“China’s Position Paper”), in letters to members of the Tribunal from the Chinese Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and in many public statements. The Chinese Government has also made clear that these statements and documents “shall by no means be interpreted as China’s participation in the arbitral proceeding in any form.”
Two provisions of the Convention address the situation of a party that objects to the jurisdiction of a tribunal and declines to participate in the proceedings:
(a) Article 288 of the Convention provides that: “In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.”
(b) Article 9 of Annex VII to the Convention provides that:
If one of the parties to the dispute does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its case, the other party may request the tribunal to continue the proceedings and to make its award. Absence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings. Before making its award, the arbitral tribunal must satisfy itself not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law.
Throughout these proceedings, the Tribunal has taken a number of steps to fulfil its duty to satisfy itself as to whether it has jurisdiction and whether the Philippines’ claims are “well founded in fact and law”. With respect to jurisdiction, the Tribunal decided to treat China’s informal communications as equivalent to an objection to jurisdiction, convened a Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 7 to 13 July 2015, questioned the Philippines both before and during the hearing on matters of jurisdiction, including potential issues not raised in China’s informal communications, and issued an Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 29 October 2015 (the “Award on Jurisdiction”), deciding some issues of jurisdiction and deferring others for further consideration in conjunction with the merits of the Philippines’ claims. With respect to the merits, the Tribunal sought to test the accuracy of the Philippines’ claims by requesting further written submissions from the Philippines, by convening a hearing on the merits from 24 to 30 November 2015, by questioning the Philippines both before and during the hearing with respect to its claims, by appointing independent experts to report to the Tribunal on technical matters, and by obtaining historical records and hydrographic survey data for the South China Sea from the archives of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, the National Library of France, and the French National Overseas Archives and providing it to the Parties for comment, along with other relevant materials in the public domain.
2. The Parties’ Positions
The Philippines made 15 Submissions in these proceedings, requesting the Tribunal to find that:
(1) China’s maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, like those of the Philippines, may not extend beyond those expressly permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;
(2) China’s claims to sovereign rights jurisdiction, and to “historic rights”, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the so-called “nine-dash line” are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements expressly permitted by UNCLOS;
(3) Scarborough Shoal generates no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;
(4) Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, and are not features that are capable of appropriation by occupation or otherwise;
(5) Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines;
(6) Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including Hughes Reef) are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, but their low-water line may be used to determine the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Namyit and Sin Cowe, respectively, is measured;
(7) Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef generate no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;
(8) China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the sovereign rights of the Philippines with respect to the living and non-living resources of its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf;
(9) China has unlawfully failed to prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting the living resources in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines;
(10) China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by interfering with traditional fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal;
(11) China has violated its obligations under the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef;
(12) China’s occupation of and construction activities on Mischief Reef
(a) violate the provisions of the Convention concerning artificial islands, installations and structures;
(b) violate China’s duties to protect and preserve the marine environment under the Convention; and
(c) constitute unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in violation of the Convention;
(13) China has breached its obligations under the Convention by operating its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner, causing serious risk of collision to Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal;
(14) Since the commencement of this arbitration in January 2013, China has unlawfully aggravated and extended the dispute by, among other things:
(a) interfering with the Philippines’ rights of navigation in the waters at, and adjacent to, Second Thomas Shoal;
(b) preventing the rotation and resupply of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal;
(c) endangering the health and well-being of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal; and
(d) conducting dredging, artificial island-building and construction activities at Mischief Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef; and
(15) China shall respect the rights and freedoms of the Philippines under the Convention, shall comply with its duties under the Convention, including those relevant to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the South China Sea, and shall exercise its rights and freedoms in the South China Sea with due regard to those of the Philippines under the Convention.
With respect to jurisdiction, the Philippines has asked the Tribunal to declare that the Philippines’ claims “are entirely within its jurisdiction and are fully admissible.”
China does not accept and is not participating in this arbitration but stated its position that the Tribunal “does not have jurisdiction over this case.” In its Position Paper, China advanced the following arguments:
- The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the Convention and does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention;
- China and the Philippines have agreed, through bilateral instruments and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, to settle their relevant disputes through negotiations. By unilaterally initiating the present arbitration, the Philippines has breached its obligation under international law;
- Even assuming, arguendo, that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, that subject-matter would constitute an integral part of maritime delimitation between the two countries, thus falling within the scope of the declaration filed by China in 2006 in accordance with the Convention, which excludes, inter alia, disputes concerning maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration and other compulsory dispute settlement procedures;
Although China has not made equivalent public statements with respect to the merits of the majority of the Philippines’ claims, the Tribunal has sought throughout the proceedings to ascertain China’s position on the basis of its contemporaneous public statements and diplomatic correspondence.
3. The Tribunal’s Decisions on the Scope of its Jurisdiction
The Tribunal has addressed the scope of its jurisdiction to consider the Philippines’ claims both in its Award on Jurisdiction, to the extent that issues of jurisdiction could be decided as a preliminary matter, and in its Award of 12 July 2016, to the extent that issues of jurisdiction were intertwined with the merits of the Philippines’ claims. The Tribunal’s Award of 12 July 2016 also incorporates and reaffirms the decisions on jurisdiction taken in the Award on Jurisdiction.
For completeness, the Tribunal’s decisions on jurisdiction in both awards are summarized here together.
a. Preliminary Matters
In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered a number of preliminary matters with respect to its jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that both the Philippines and China are parties to the Convention and that the Convention does not permit a State to except itself generally from the mechanism for the resolution of disputes set out in the Convention. The Tribunal held that China’s non-participation does not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction and that the Tribunal had been properly constituted pursuant to the provisions of Annex VII to the Convention, which include a procedure to form a tribunal even in the absence of one party. Finally, the Tribunal rejected an argument set out in China’s Position Paper and held that the mere act of unilaterally initiating an arbitration cannot constitute an abuse of the Convention.
b. Existence of a Dispute Concerning Interpretation and Application of the Convention
In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered whether the Parties’ disputes concerned the interpretation or application of the Convention, which is a requirement for resort to the dispute settlement mechanisms of the Convention.
The Tribunal rejected the argument set out in China’s Position Paper that the Parties’ dispute is actually about territorial sovereignty and therefore not a matter concerning the Convention. The Tribunal accepted that there is a dispute between the Parties concerning sovereignty over islands in the South China Sea, but held that the matters submitted to arbitration by the Philippines do not concern sovereignty. The Tribunal considered that it would not need to implicitly decide sovereignty to address the Philippines’ Submissions and that doing so would not advance the sovereignty claims of either Party to islands in the South China Sea.
The Tribunal also rejected the argument set out in China’s Position Paper that the Parties’ dispute is actually about maritime boundary delimitation and therefore excluded from dispute settlement by Article 298 of the Convention and a declaration that China made on 25 August 2006 pursuant to that Article. The Tribunal noted that a dispute concerning whether a State has an entitlement to a maritime zone is a distinct matter from the delimitation of maritime zones in an area in which they overlap. The Tribunal noted that entitlements, together with a wide variety of other issues, are commonly considered in a boundary delimitation, but can also arise in other contexts. The Tribunal held that it does not follow that a dispute over each of these issues is necessarily a dispute over boundary delimitation.
Finally, the Tribunal held that each of the Philippines’ Submissions reflected a dispute concerning the Convention. In doing so, the Tribunal emphasized (a) that a dispute concerning the interaction between the Convention and other rights (including any Chinese “historic rights”) is a dispute concerning the Convention and (b) that where China has not clearly stated its position, the existence of a dispute may be inferred from the conduct of a State or from silence and is a matter to be determined objectively.
c. Involvement of Indispensable Third-Parties
In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered whether the absence from this arbitration of other States that have made claims to the islands of the South China Sea would be a bar to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the rights of other States would not form “the very subject-matter of the decision,” the standard for a third-party to be indispensable. The Tribunal further noted that in December 2014, Viet Nam had submitted a statement to the Tribunal, in which Viet Nam asserted that it has “no doubt that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in these proceedings.” The Tribunal also noted that Viet Nam, Malaysia, and Indonesia had attended the hearing on jurisdiction as observers, without any State raising the argument that its participation was indispensable.
In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal noted that it had received a communication from Malaysia on 23 June 2016, recalling Malaysia’s claims in the South China Sea. The Tribunal compared its decisions on the merits of the Philippines’ Submissions with the rights claimed by Malaysia and reaffirmed its decision that Malaysia is not an indispensable party and that Malaysia’s interests in the South China Sea do not prevent the Tribunal from addressing the Philippines’ Submissions.
d. Preconditions to Jurisdiction
In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered the applicability of Articles 281 and 282 of the Convention, which may prevent a State from making use of the mechanisms under the Convention if they have already agreed to another means of dispute resolution.
The Tribunal rejected the argument set out in China’s Position Paper that the 2002 China–ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea prevented the Philippines from initiating arbitration. The Tribunal held that the Declaration is a political agreement and not legally binding, does not provide a mechanism for binding settlement, does not exclude other means of dispute settlement, and therefore does not restrict the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Articles 281 or 282. The Tribunal also considered the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and a series of joint statements issued by the Philippines and China referring to the resolution of disputes through negotiations and concluded that none of these instruments constitute an agreement that would prevent the Philippines from bringing its claims to arbitration.
The Tribunal further held that the Parties had exchanged views regarding the settlement of their disputes, as required by Article 283 of the Convention, before the Philippines initiated the arbitration. The Tribunal concluded that this requirement was met in the record of diplomatic communications between the Philippines and China, in which the Philippines expressed a clear preference for multilateral negotiations involving the other States surrounding the South China Sea, while China insisted that only bilateral talks could be considered.
e. Exceptions and Limitations to Jurisdiction
In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered whether the Philippines’ Submissions concerning Chinese historic rights and the ‘nine-dash line’ were affected by the exception from jurisdiction for disputes concerning “historic title” in Article 298 of the Convention. The Tribunal reviewed the meaning of “historic title” in the law of the sea and held that this refers to claims of historic sovereignty over bays and other near-shore waters. Reviewing China’s claims and conduct in the South China Sea, the Tribunal concluded that China claims historic rights to resources within the ‘nine-dash line’, but does not claim historic title over the waters of the South China Sea. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider the Philippines’ claims concerning historic rights and, as between the Philippines and China, the ‘nine-dash line’.
In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal also considered whether the Philippines’ Submissions were affected by the exception from jurisdiction in Article 298 for disputes concerning sea boundary delimitation. The Tribunal had already found in its Award on Jurisdiction that the Philippines’ Submissions do not concern boundary delimitation as such, but noted that several of the Philippines’ Submissions were dependent on certain areas forming part of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. The Tribunal held that it could only address such submissions if there was no possibility that China could have an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone overlapping that of the Philippines and deferred a final decision on its jurisdiction. In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal reviewed evidence about the reefs and islands claimed by China in the South China Sea and concluded that none is capable of generating an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone. Because China has no possible entitlement to an exclusive economic zone overlapping that of the Philippines in the Spratly Islands, the Tribunal held that the Philippines’ submissions were not dependent on a prior delimitation of a boundary.
In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal also considered whether the Philippines’ Submissions were affected by the exception from jurisdiction in Article 298 for disputes concerning law enforcement activities in the exclusive economic zone. The Tribunal recalled that the exception in Article 298 would apply only if the Philippines’ Submissions related to law enforcement activities in China’s exclusive economic zone. Because, however, the Philippines’ Submissions related to events in the Philippines’ own exclusive economic zone or in the territorial sea, the Tribunal concluded that Article 298 did not pose an obstacle to its jurisdiction.
Lastly, in its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered whether the Philippines’ submissions were affected by the exception from jurisdiction in Article 298 for disputes concerning military activities. The Tribunal considered that the stand-off between Philippine marines on Second Thomas Shoal and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels constituted military activities and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the Philippines’ Submission No. 14(a)-(c). The Tribunal also considered whether China’s land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands constituted military activities, but noted that China had repeatedly emphasized the non-military nature of its actions and had stated at the highest level that it would not militarize its presence in the Spratlys. The Tribunal decided that it would not deem activities to be military in nature when China itself had repeatedly affirmed the opposite. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that Article 298 did not pose an obstacle to its jurisdiction.
4. The Tribunal’s Decisions on the Merits of the Philippines’ Claims
a. The ‘Nine-Dash Line’ and China’s Claim to Historic Rights in the Maritime Areas of the South China Sea
In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered the implications of China’s ‘nine-dash line’ and whether China has historic rights to resources in the South China Sea beyond the limits of the maritime zones that it is entitled to pursuant to the Convention.
The Tribunal examined the history of the Convention and its provisions concerning maritime zones and concluded that the Convention was intended to comprehensively allocate the rights of States to maritime areas. The Tribunal noted that the question of pre-existing rights to resources (in particular fishing resources) was carefully considered during the negotiations on the creation of the exclusive economic zone and that a number of States wished to preserve historic fishing rights in the new zone. This position was rejected, however, and the final text of the Convention gives other States only a limited right of access to fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (in the event the coastal State cannot harvest the full allowable catch) and no rights to petroleum or mineral resources. The Tribunal found that China’s claim to historic rights to resources was incompatible with the detailed allocation of rights and maritime zones in the Convention and concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished by the entry into force of the Convention to the extent they were incompatible with the Convention’s system of maritime zones.
The Tribunal also examined the historical record to determine whether China actually had historic rights to resources in the South China Sea prior to the entry into force of the Convention. The Tribunal noted that there is evidence that Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, although the Tribunal emphasized that it was not empowered to decide the question of sovereignty over the islands. However, the Tribunal considered that prior to the Convention, the waters of the South China Sea beyond the territorial sea were legally part of the high seas, in which vessels from any State could freely navigate and fish. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that historical navigation and fishing by China in the waters of the South China Sea represented the exercise of high seas freedoms, rather than a historic right, and that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters of the South China Sea or prevented other States from exploiting their resources.
Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that, as between the Philippines and China, there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources, in excess of the rights provided for by the Convention, within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.
b. The Status of Features in the South China Sea
In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered the status of features in the South China Sea and the entitlements to maritime areas that China could potentially claim pursuant to the Convention.
The Tribunal first undertook a technical evaluation as to whether certain coral reefs claimed by China are or are not above water at high tide. Under Articles 13 and 121 of the Convention, features that are above water at high tide generate an entitlement to at least a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, whereas features that are submerged at high tide generate no entitlement to maritime zones. The Tribunal noted that many of the reefs in the South China Sea have been heavily modified by recent land reclamation and construction and recalled that the Convention classifies features on the basis of their natural condition. The Tribunal appointed an expert hydrographer to assist it in evaluating the Philippines’ technical evidence and relied heavily on archival materials and historical hydrographic surveys in evaluating the features. The Tribunal agreed with the Philippines that Scarborough Shoal, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are high-tide features and that Subi Reef, Hughes Reef, Mischief Reef, and Second Thomas Shoal were submerged at high tide in their natural condition. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Philippines regarding the status of Gaven Reef (North) and McKennan Reef and concluded that both are high tide features.
The Tribunal then considered whether any of the features claimed by China could generate an entitlement to maritime zones beyond 12 nautical miles. Under Article 121 of the Convention, islands generate an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and to a continental shelf, but “[r]ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” The Tribunal noted that this provision was closely linked to the expansion of coastal State jurisdiction with the creation of the exclusive economic zone and was intended to prevent insignificant features from generating large entitlements to maritime zones that would infringe on the entitlements of inhabited territory or on the high seas and the area of the seabed reserved for the common heritage of mankind. The Tribunal interpreted Article 121 and concluded that the entitlements of a feature depend on (a) the objective capacity of a feature, (b) in its natural condition, to sustain either (c) a stable community of people or (d) economic activity that is neither dependent on outside resources nor purely extractive in nature.
The Tribunal noted that many of the features in the Spratly Islands are currently controlled by one or another of the littoral States, which have constructed installations and maintain personnel there. The Tribunal considered these modern presences to be dependent on outside resources and support and noted that many of the features have been modified to improve their habitability, including through land reclamation and the construction of infrastructure such as desalination plants. The Tribunal concluded that the current presence of official personnel on many of the features does not establish their capacity, in their natural condition, to sustain a stable community of people and considered that historical evidence of habitation or economic life was more relevant to the objective capacity of the features. Examining the historical record, the Tribunal noted that the Spratly Islands were historically used by small groups of fishermen from China, as well as other States, and that several Japanese fishing and guano mining enterprises were attempted in the 1920s and 1930s. The Tribunal concluded that temporary use of the features by fishermen did not amount to inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive in nature. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that all of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands (including, for example, Itu Aba, Thitu, West York Island, Spratly Island, North-East Cay, South-West Cay) are legally “rocks” that do not generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
The Tribunal also held that the Convention does not provide for a group of islands such as the Spratly Islands to generate maritime zones collectively as a unit.
c. Chinese Activities in the South China Sea
In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered the lawfulness under the Convention of various Chinese actions in the South China Sea.
Having found that Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal and Reed Bank are submerged at high tide, form part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines, and are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention is clear in allocating sovereign rights to the Philippines with respect to sea areas in its exclusive economic zone. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that China had (a) interfered with Philippine petroleum exploration at Reed Bank, (b) purported to prohibit fishing by Philippine vessels within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, (c) protected and failed to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone at Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal, and (d) constructed installations and artificial islands at Mischief Reef without the authorization of the Philippines. The Tribunal therefore concluded that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights with respect to its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.
The Tribunal next examined traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal and concluded that fishermen from the Philippines, as well as fishermen from China and other countries, had long fished at the Shoal and had traditional fishing rights in the area. Because Scarborough Shoal is above water at high tide, it generates an entitlement to a territorial sea, its surrounding waters do not form part of the exclusive economic zone, and traditional fishing rights were not extinguished by the Convention. Although the Tribunal emphasized that it was not deciding sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal, it found that China had violated its duty to respect to the traditional fishing rights of Philippine fishermen by halting access to the Shoal after May 2012. The Tribunal noted, however, that it would reach the same conclusion with respect to the traditional fishing rights of Chinese fishermen if the Philippines were to prevent fishing by Chinese nationals at Scarborough Shoal.
The Tribunal also considered the effect of China’s actions on the marine environment. In doing so, the Tribunal was assisted by three independent experts on coral reef biology who were appointed to assist it in evaluating the available scientific evidence and the Philippines’ expert reports. The Tribunal found that China’s recent large scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands has caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and that China has violated its obligation under Articles 192 and 194 of the Convention to preserve and protect the marine environment with respect to fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species. The Tribunal also found that Chinese fishermen have engaged in the harvesting of endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea, using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment. The Tribunal found that Chinese authorities were aware of these activities and failed to fulfill their due diligence obligations under the Convention to stop them.
Finally, the Tribunal considered the lawfulness of the conduct of Chinese law enforcement vessels at Scarborough Shoal on two occasions in April and May 2012 when Chinese vessels had sought to physically obstruct Philippine vessels from approaching or gaining entrance to the Shoal. In doing so, the Tribunal was assisted by an independent expert on navigational safety who was appointed to assist it in reviewing the written reports provided by the officers of the Philippine vessels and the expert evidence on navigational safety provided by the Philippines. The Tribunal found that Chinese law enforcement vessels had repeatedly approached the Philippine vessels at high speed and sought to cross ahead of them at close distances, creating serious risk of collision and danger to Philippine ships and personnel. The Tribunal concluded that China had breached its obligations under the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, and Article 94 the Convention concerning maritime safety.
d. Aggravation of the Dispute between the Parties
In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered whether China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties. The Tribunal recalled that there exists a duty on parties engaged in a dispute settlement procedure to refrain from aggravating or extending the dispute or disputes at issue during the pendency of the settlement process. The Tribunal noted that China has (a) built a large artificial island on Mischief Reef, a low-tide elevation located in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines; (b) caused permanent, irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem and (c) permanently destroyed evidence of the natural condition of the features in question. The Tribunal concluded that China had violated its obligations to refrain from aggravating or extending the Parties’ disputes during the pendency of the settlement process.
e. Future Conduct of the Parties
Finally, the Tribunal considered the Philippines’ request for a declaration that, going forward, China shall respect the rights and freedoms of the Philippines and comply with its duties under the Convention. In this respect, the Tribunal noted that both the Philippines and China have repeatedly accepted that the Convention and general obligations of good faith define and regulate their conduct. The Tribunal considered that the root of the disputes at issue in this arbitration lies not in any intention on the part of China or the Philippines to infringe on the legal rights of the other, but rather in fundamentally different understandings of their respective rights under the Convention in the waters of the South China Sea. The Tribunal recalled that it is a fundamental principle of international law that bad faith is not presumed and noted that Article 11 of Annex VII provides that the “award . . . shall be complied with by the parties to the dispute.” The Tribunal therefore considered that no further declaration was necessary.
