Last month’s ruling by a tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on the dispute brought by the Philippines against China has earned its place in maritime legal annals. Its precedent is likely to be felt beyond the South China Sea, but whether it will influence China is open to question.

Unlike previous territorial disputes put before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or International Court of Justice in The Hague, this tribunal did not adjudicate on sovereignty. That would have required both parties’ agreement. Furthermore, China’s reservations after ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) against compulsory dispute settlement under the Convention being binding effectively precluded such a direct approach. The Philippines was able to seek arbitration by focusing its case on the legal status of disputed maritime features, rather than a determination on who owns what. On these more limited terms, the Philippines obtained a sweeping victory, with the panel finding unanimously in its favor on almost all fifteen submissions.

The panel found that China’s claims of historic rights within the nine-dash line, which Beijing uses to demarcate its claims in the South China Sea, were without legal foundation. The panel also concluded that Beijing’s activities within the Philippines’ two-hundred-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ), such as illegal fishing and environmentally ruinous artificial island construction, infringed on Manila’s sovereign rights.

No Islands in the Spratlys

While these aspects of the ruling garnered headlines, the boldest implications flow from the judges’ opinion that none of the maritime features in the Spratly Islands are entitled to maritime zones beyond twelve nautical miles. UNCLOS accords the full suite of maritime jurisdiction privileges (territorial sea, EEZ, and continental shelf rights) to islands. Rocks, however, are only entitled to twelve nautical miles of territorial sea, and freestanding low-tide elevations have no jurisdictional entitlement at all.

http://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/global_memos/p38227