//
you're reading...
Development & Settlement of disputes

The Philippines v . China Case and the South China Sea Disputes

Abstract:

On 22 January 2013, the Philippines officially notified China that it had instituted arbitral proceedings against China under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This paper will examine the role of UNCLOS and international law in the South China Sea disputes and will focus in particular on the significance of the case instituted by the Philippines. It will explain the legal issues raised by the Philippines’ Statement of Claim. It will analyse the possible impact of the case on the disputes concerning maritime claims in the South China Sea, including China’s claim to rights and jurisdiction in the maritime space inside the infamous nine-dash line on the Chinese map of the South China Sea.

By Robert Beckman, Director, Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore

At Asia Society / LKY SPP Conference: South China Sea: Central to Asia-Pacific Peace and Security. New York, March 13-15, 2013

Map of the South China Sea produced by Clive Schofield and Andi Arsana, (ANCORS) showing claims in the South China Sea. The map is reproduced with permission from the January 2013 issue of the American Journal of International Law © 2013 American Society of International Law. All rights reserved.

Map of the South China Sea produced by Clive Schofield and Andi Arsana,
(ANCORS) showing claims in the South China Sea.
 © 2013 American Society of International Law.

I. LEGAL DISPUTES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

A. Disputes on Sovereignty over Off-Shore Islands

The fundamental dispute in the South China Sea concerns sovereignty over off-shore islands. China, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam claim some or all of the islands in the Spratly Islands. China and the Philippines claim the islands in Scarborough Shoal, and China and Vietnam claim the Paracel Islands. In addition, Taiwan claims the same islands as China.

The international law on the acquisition and loss of territory (including islands) is set out in the principles and rules of customary international law. There are no provisions in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) on how to determine which State has the better claim to sovereignty over a disputed territory. UNCLOS only sets out what maritime zones can be claimed from land territory (including islands), as well as the rights and jurisdiction of States in such maritime zones.

The fundamental principle of international law governing the settlement of disputes is that a dispute between two States on an issue of international law cannot be referred to an international court or tribunal without the consent of both parties to the dispute. Therefore, the disputes on which State has the better claim to sovereignty over the disputed islands in the South China Sea cannot be referred to any form of third party dispute settlement without the consent of all parties to the dispute.

B. Disputes concerning the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

All of the States bordering the South China Sea and claiming sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea are parties to UNCLOS. Therefore, UNCLOS is critically important when analysing the legal disputes in the South China Sea.

UNCLOS assumes that it is known who has sovereignty over land territory, including off-shore islands. It sets out what maritime zones can be claimed by States from their land territory and islands, and the rights and duties of coastal States and other States in the various maritime zones.

When a State becomes a party to UNCLOS, it consents in advance to the dispute settlement provisions in Part XV of UNCLOS. The general principle in Part XV is that if a dispute arises between two parties on the interpretation or application of a provision in UNCLOS, and the dispute cannot be resolved by consultation and negotiation, either party to the dispute may unilaterally bring the dispute before an international court or arbitral tribunal, and the decision of the court or tribunal is legally binding on both parties to the dispute.

Read more at http://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Beckman-Asia-Society-LKY-SPP-March-2013-draft-of-6-March.pdf

Advertisements

Discussion

2 thoughts on “The Philippines v . China Case and the South China Sea Disputes

  1. It’s a pity you don’t have a donate button! I’d without a doubt donate to this excellent blog! I guess for now i’ll
    settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account.

    I look forward to brand new updates and will share this website
    with my Facebook group. Talk soon!

    Posted by bet angel | June 20, 2013, 1:41 am
  2. According to WIKILEAKS!

    Chinese authorities have failed to identify specific historical evidence backing Beijing’s claims that it owns disputed islands in the West Philippine Sea, a confidential US embassy cable published by anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks said.

    Cable 08BEIJING3499, sent to Washington by the US embassy in Beijing in September 9, 2008, said a Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) official and a local scholar could not identify specific historical records to justify China’s “Nine Dashes” claim that covers the whole Spratlys and areas within other countries’ exclusive economic zones (EEZs).

    Posted by EPAca | July 28, 2013, 2:18 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow South China Sea on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 25 other followers

%d bloggers like this: