Delimitation of maritime boundaries

Philippines v. China is a pending arbitration case concerning the legality of Chinas nine-dash line claim over the South China Sea under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS).Philippine vs China Arbitral CaseArt: http://joelchua.deviantart.com/art/Spratlys-Editorial-122655102Art: http://joelchua.deviantart.com/art/Spratlys-Editorial-1226551021

The Republic of the Philippines v. The Peoples Republic of ChinaOn 22 January 2013, the Republic of the Philippines instituted arbitral proceedings against the Peoples Republic of China under Annex VII to the UNCLOS (the Convention), with respect to the dispute with China over the maritime jurisdiction of the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea. On 19 February 2013, China presented a Note Verbale to the Philippines in which it described the Position of China on the South China Sea issues, and rejected and returned the Philippines Notification. The Permanent Court of Arbitration acts as Registry in this arbitration. Arbitral Tribunal

The members of the Arbitral Tribunal are:

Judge Thomas A. Mensah (President) Judge Jean-Pierre Cot Judge Stanislaw Pawlak Professor Alfred H. A. Soons Judge Rdiger Wolfrum

Party Representatives

The Philippines is represented by:

Agent Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza Office of the Solicitor General, Makati, Republic of the Philippines

Counsel Paul S. Reichler Lawrence H. Martin Foley Hoag LLP, Washington DC, United States of America

Professor Bernard H. Oxman University of Miami School of Law, Miami, United States of America

Professor Philippe Sands QC Matrix Chambers, London, United Kingdom

Professor Alan Boyle Essex Court Chambers, London, United KingdomChina has not appointed an agent. In a Note Verbale to the PCA on 1 August 2013, China reiterated its position that it does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines.Philippine stance

The Philippines is contending that the so-called "nine-dotted line" claim by China is invalid because it violates the UNCLOS agreements about exclusive economic zones and territorial seas. It says that because most of the features in the South China Sea, such as most of the Spratly Islands, cannot sustain life, they cannot be given their own continental shelf as defined in the convention.

Philippine President Aquino: "Chinas 9-dash line territorial claim over the entire South China Sea is against international laws, particularly the United National Convention of the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS)". Vietnam also rejected the 9-dotted line claim, citing that it is baseless and against the UNCLOS Within the maritime area encompassed by the 9-dash line, China has also laid claim to, occupied and built structures on certain submerged banks, reefs and low tide elevations that do not qualify as islands under UNCLOS, but are parts of the Philippine continental shelf, or the international seabed. In addition, China has occupied certain small, uninhabitable coral projections that are barely above water at high tide, and which are rocks under Article 121 (3) of UNCLOS.

China has interfered with the lawful exercise by the Philippines of its rights within its legitimate maritime zones, as well as to the aforementioned features and their surrounding waters.PART VIIIREGIME OF ISLANDS

Article121

Regime of islandsAn island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Chinese stance China refuses to participate in the arbitration, claiming that the Philippines had "no legal groundsNotification and Statement of Claim:The Philippines asserts that Chinas so-called nine-dash line claim that encompasses virtually the entire South China Sea/West Philippine Sea is contrary to UNCLOS and thus unlawful. Within the maritime area encompassed by the 9-dash line, China has also laid claim to, occupied and built structures on certain submerged banks, reefs and low tide elevations that do not qualify as islands under UNCLOS, but are parts of the Philippine continental shelf, or the international seabed. In addition, China has occupied certain small, uninhabitable coral projections that are barely above water at high tide, and which are rocks under Article 121 (3) of UNCLOS.China has interfered with the lawful exercise by the Philippines of its rights within its legitimate maritime zones, as well as to the aforementioned features and their surrounding waters.The Philippines is conscious of Chinas Declaration of August 25, 2006 under Article 298 of UNCLOS (regarding optional exceptions to the compulsory proceedings), and has avoided raising subjects or making claims that China has, by virtue of that Declaration, excluded from arbitral jurisdiction.

Chinas Reclamation 9China ratified UNCLOS in 1996, but in 2006 the Chinese government filed a statement with UNCLOS saying that it "does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b), and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.

" These provisions of the Convention refer to "Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions" issued by at least four venues: the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an "arbitral tribunal" which may refer to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), and a "special arbitral tribunal.

China does not wish to be bound by its compulsory processes10 Article 9 of Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

provides for proceedings to continue if one of the parties to the dispute does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its case. Article 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Arbitral Tribunal further provides that

In the event that a Party does not appear before the Arbitral Tribunal or fails to defend its case, the Arbitral Tribunal shall invite written arguments from the appearing Party on, or pose questions regarding, specific issues which the Arbitral Tribunal considers have not been canvassed, or have been inadequately canvassed, in the pleadings submitted by the appearing Party. The appearing Party shall make a supplemental written submission in relation to the matters identified by the Arbitral Tribunal within three months of the Arbitral Tribunals invitation.

Chinas 9 dotted line

Specific disputesThe nine-dash line area claimed by China which covers most of the South China sea and overlaps Exclusive Economic Zone claims of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Vietnam.

Despite having made the vague claim public in 1947, China has not filed file a formal and specifically defined claim to the area within the dashes

The Philippines has until 15 March 2015 to file a supplemental written submission addressing the Arbitral Tribunals Request, and China will have until 16 June 2015 to provide any comments in response to the supplemental written submission of the Philippines. Southern Blue Fin Tuna CaseThe Cases

The Soutbern Blue n Tuna case (SBY) originally arose out of a dispute underthe trilateral Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CSBTConvention) of 10 May 1993 between Australia and New Zealand, on the onehand, and Japan, on the other, regarding a unilateral experimental fishing program(EFP) carried out by Japan on the high seas in 1998-1999 with respect to southernbluefin tuna.

Southern bluefin tuna is a highly migratory species. The CSBT Conventionsets up a Commission that may take binding decisions on, inter alia, a totalallowable catch (TAC) and its allocation among the member states.

Australia and New Zealand alleged that Japan had failed to comply with its obligation to cooperate in the conservation of the southern blue fin tuna (SBT) stock by undertaking unilateral experimental fishing for SBT in breach of its obligation unter Art. 64 and 116-119 of UNCLOS in relation to the Conservation managament of the SBT. They are also asking for provisional remedies in the form of an order commanding Japan to desist from such unilateral experimental fishingON July 30, 1999 Australia and New Zealand filed separately with the Registrar of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea(the Tribunal) requests for provisional measures against Japan concerning the conservation of southern bluefin tunaUnder article 64 and 116 to 119 of the Convention States Parties to the Convention have the duty to cooperate directly or through appropriate international organizations with a view to ensure conservation and promoting the objective of optimum utilization of the highly migratory species.PROVISIONAL MEASURES

The Tribunal found that measures should be taken as a matter of urgency to preserve the rights of the Parties and to avert further deterioration of the Southern Blue fin Tuna and concluded that provisional measures were appropriate.DECISION

Australia, Japan and New Zealand shall ensure, that their annual catches do not exceed the annual allocations at the levels last agreed by the parties of 5,265t, 6,065t and 420t respectively.

All the parties shall refrain from conducting an experimental fishing program involving the catch of SBT.

All the parties should resume negotiations to reach an agreement on measures for the conservation and management of sbt