RP-China Case Outline:

1.
2.
3.
4.

What is the case all about? History of the case

Claim of RP-basis, history, law
Claim of China- basis, history, law
Current status

Facts:
Antecedents
The Philippines' bilateral dispute with China over the shoal began on April 30,
1997 when Filipino naval ships prevented Chinese boats from approaching
the shoal. On June 5 of that year, Domingo Siazon, who was then the
Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs, testified in front of the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the United States Senate that the Shoal was "a new
issue on overlapping claims between the Philippines and China".
Philippines v. China is a pending arbitration case unilaterally brought by
the Philippines concerning certain issues in the South China Sea including the
legality of China's "nine-dotted line" claim over the South China Sea under
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). On 19
February 2013, China officially refused to participate in the arbitration
because, according to China, its 2006 declaration under article 298 covers
the disputes brought by the Philippines and that this case
concerns sovereignty, thus it deems the arbitral tribunal formed for the case
has no jurisdiction over the issue. On 7 December 2014, a position paper was
published by China to elaborate its position. On October 29, 2015,
the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled that it has jurisdiction over
the case, taking up seven of the 15 submissions made by Manila.
The Scarborough Shoal an area that barely consists of land and is mostly
made up of uninhabited rocky outcrops, atolls, sandbanks, and reefs have
been the center of controversy. The reason this particular section of the
Pacific Ocean is valuable to so many different states is because of the rich
resources that are found there including: oil, natural gas, minerals, and fish.
CHINAS CLAIM
The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) claim that
Chinese people discovered the shoal centuries ago and that there is a long
history of Chinese fishing activity in the area. The shoal lies within the ninedotted line drawn by China on maps marking its claim to islands and relevant
waters consistent with United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) within the South China Sea. An article published in May 2012
in the PLA Daily states that Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing went to the
island in 1279, under the Yuan dynasty, as part of an empire-wide survey
called "Measurement of the Four Seas" ( ). In 1979 historical
geographer Han Zhenhua () was among the first scholars to claim that
the point called "Nanhai" (literally, "South Sea") in that astronomical survey
referred to Scarborough Shoal. In 1980 during a conflict with Vietnam for
sovereignty over the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands), however, the Chinese
government issued an official document claiming that "Nanhai" in the 1279
survey was located in the Paracels. Historical geographer Niu Zhongxun

defended this view in several articles. In 1990, a historian called Zeng

Zhaoxuan ( ) argued instead that the Nanhai measuring point was
located in Central Vietnam. Historian of astronomy Chen Meidong ( )
and historian of Chinese science Nathan Sivin have since agreed with Zeng's
position in their respective books about Guo Shoujing.
In 1935, China, as the Republic of China (ROC), regarded the shoal as part of
the Zhongsha Islands. That position has since been maintained by both the
ROC, which now governs Taiwan, and the People's Republic of China (PRC). In
1947 the shoal was given the name Minzhu Jiao (Chinese: ; literally:
"Democracy Reef"). In 1983 the People's Republic of China renamed
it Huangyan Island with Minzhu Jiao reserved as a second name.[18]In 1956
Beijing protested Philippine remarks that the South China Sea islands in close
proximity to Philippine territory should belong to the Philippines.
China's Declaration on the territorial Sea, promulgated in 1958, says in part,
The breadth of the Territorial Sea of the People's Republic of China
shall be twelve nautical miles. This applies to all territories of the People's
Republic of China, including the Chinese mainland and its coastal islands, as
well as Taiwan and its surrounding islands, the Penghu Islands, the Dongsha
Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands [italics added], the Nansha
Islands and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the
mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas.
China reaffirmed its claim of sovereignty over the Zhongsha Islands in its
1992 Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. China claims all
the islands, reefs, and shoals within a U-shaped line in the South China Sea
drawn in 1947 as its territory. Scarborough shoal lies within this area.
China further asserted its claim shortly after the departure of the US Navy
force from Subic, Zambales, Philippines. In the late 1970s, many scientific
expedition activities organized by State Bureau of Surveying, National
Earthquake Bureau and National Bureau of Oceanography were held in the
shoal and around this area. In 1980, a stone marker reading "South China
Sea Scientific Expedition" was installed on the South Rock, but was removed
by Philippines in 1997.
Issue of Huanyan Island (Scarborough Shoal)
The Huangyan Island is China's inherent territory. The Philippines once
clearly stated that the island is not within its territory. First, a series of
international treaties defining the domain of the Philippine territory provide
that the Huangyan Island is outside the territory of the Philippines. The then
Philippine ambassador to Germany explicitly stated in 1990 in his letter to
German radio amateurs that the Huangyan Island is not within the territory
of the Philippines. The documents issued in 1994 by the Philippine National
Mapping and Resources Authority as well as the Philippine Amateur Radio
Association all confirmed that the Huangyan Island is outside the Philippine
territorial boundary. The Philippine official map issued in 2011 also marked
the Huangyan Island outside the Philippine territorial border limits.
PHILIPPINES CLAIM
The Philippines state that its assertion of sovereignty over the shoal is based
on the juridical criteria established by public international law on the lawful
methods for the acquisition of sovereignty. Among the criteria (effective

occupation, cession, prescription, conquest,

and
accretion),
the
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has asserted that the country
exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over the shoal,
which it terms Bajo de Masinloc, since its independence. Thus, it claims to
have erected flags in some islands and a lighthouse which it reported to the
International Maritime Organization. It also asserts that the Philippine and US
Naval Forces have used it as impact range and that its Department of
Environment and Natural Resources has conducted scientific, topographic
and marine studies in the shoal, while Filipino fishermen regularly use it as
fishing ground and have always considered it their own.
The DFA also claims that the name Bajo de Masinloc (translated as "under
Masinloc") itself identifies the shoal as a particular political subdivision of the
Philippine Province of Zambales, known as Masinloc. As basis, the Philippines
cites the Island of Palmas Case, where the sovereignty of the island was
adjudged by the international court in favor of the Netherlands because of its
effective jurisdiction and control over the island despite the historic claim of
Spain. Thus, the Philippines argues that the historic claim of China over the
Scarborough Shoal still needs to be substantiated by a historic title, since a
claim by itself is not among the internationally recognized legal basis for
acquiring sovereignty over territory.
It also asserts that there is no indication that the international community
has acquiesced to China's historical claim, and that the activity of fishing of
private Chinese individuals, claimed to be a traditional exercise among these
waters, does not constitute a sovereign act of the Chinese state.
The Philippine government argues that since the legal basis of its claim is
based on the international law on acquisition of sovereignty, the Exclusive
Economic Zone claim on the waters around Scarborough is different from the
sovereignty exercised by the Philippines in the shoal.
The Philippines also claims that as early as the Spanish colonization of the
Philippines, Filipino fishermen were already using the area as a traditional
fishing ground and shelter during bad weather.
Several official Philippine maps published by Spain and United States in 18th
and 20th centuries show Scarborough Shoal as Philippine territory. The 18thcentury map "Carta hydrographica y chorographica de las Islas Filipinas"
(1734) shows the Scarborough Shoal then was named as Panacot Shoal. The
map also shows the shape of the shoal as consistent with the current maps
available as today. In 1792, another map drawn by the Malaspina expedition
and published in 1808 in Madrid, Spain also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part
of Philippine territory. The map showed the route of the Malaspina expedition
to and around the shoal. It was reproduced in the Atlas of the 1939 Philippine
Census, which was published in Manila a year later and predates the
controversial 1947 Chinese South China Sea Claim Map that shows no
Chinese name on it. Another topographic map drawn in 1820 shows the
shoal, named there as "Bajo Scarburo," as a constituent part of Sambalez
(Zambales
province). During
the
1900s, Mapa
General, Islas
Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila, and US Coast and Geodetic Survey Map
include the Scarborough Shoal named as "Baju De Masinloc."[30] A map
published in 1978 by the Philippine National Mapping and Resource
Information Authority, however, did not indicate Scarborough Shoal as part of
the Philippines.[31] Chinese scholar Li Xiao Cong stated in his published paper
that Panacot Shoal is not Scarborough Shoal, in the 1778 map "A chart of the

China Sea and Philippine Islands with the Archipelagos of Felicia and Soloo",
Scarborough shoal and 3 other shoals Galit, Panacot and Lumbay were all
shown independently. Li also pointed out that the three shoals were also
shown on Chinese maps which were published in 1717.
In 1957, the Philippine government conducted an oceanographic survey of
the area and together with the US Navy force based in then U.S. Naval Base
Subic Bay in Zambales, used the area as an impact range for defense
purposes. An 8.3 meter high flag pole flying a Philippine flag was raised in
1965. An iron tower that was to serve as a small lighthouse was also built
and operated the same year. In 1992, the Philippine Navy rehabilitated the
lighthouse and reported it to the International Maritime Organization for
publication in the List of Lights. As of 2009, the military-maintained
lighthouse is non-operational.
Historically, the Philippine boundary has been defined by its 3 treaties, Treaty
of Paris (1898), Treaty of Washington (1900) and "Convention regarding the
boundary between the Philippine Archipelago and the State of North Borneo".
Many analysts consider that the 1900 Treaty of Washington concerned only
the islands of Sibutu and Cagayan de Sulu., but a point of view argued that
Scarborough Shoal has been transferred to the United States based on the
Treaty of Washington (1900),ignoring the fact that the cession documents
from the United States to the Philippines did not have any reference to the
Scarborough Shoal.
The DFA asserts that the basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over
the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not premised on the cession by
Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of
Paris, and argues that the matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc
are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China
is therefore immaterial and of no consequence. Philippine sovereignty and
jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is likewise not premised on
proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200-NM EEZ or CS under the
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the Philippines
necessarily exercise sovereign rights over its EEZ and CS, nonetheless, the
reason why the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories is
anchored on other principles of public international law.
President Ferdinand Marcos, by virtue of the Presidential Decree No. 1596
issued on June 11, 1978 asserted that islands designated as the Kalayaan
Island Group and comprising most of the Spratly Islands are subject to the
sovereignty of the Philippines, and by virtue of the Presidential Decree No.
1599 issued on June 11, 1978 claimed an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) up
to 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the baselines from which their territorial
sea is measured.
In 2009, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo enacted the Philippine Baselines
Law of 2009 (RA 9522). The new law classified the Kalayaan Island Group
and the Scarborough Shoal as a regime of islands under the Republic of the
Philippines.
Philippines prayer
The Philippines arbitration case against China is solely a maritime dispute
and does not involve any territorial dispute. The Philippines is asking the
tribunal if Chinas 9-dashed lines can negate the Philippines EEZ as

guaranteed under UNCLOS. The Philippines is also asking the tribunal if

certain rocks above water at high tide, like Scarborough Shoal, generate a
200 NM EEZ or only a 12 NM territorial sea. The Philippines is further asking
the tribunal if China can appropriate low-tide elevations (LTEs), like Mischief
Reef and Subi Reef, within the Philippines EEZ. These disputes involve the
interpretation or application of the provisions of UNCLOS.
The Philippines is not asking the tribunal to delimit by nautical
measurements overlapping EEZs between China and the Philippines. The
Philippines is also not asking the tribunal what country has sovereignty over
an island, or rock above water at high tide, in the West Philippine Sea.
Issues:
The maritime dispute between the Philippines and China boils down to
whether there are overlapping EEZs between the Philippines and China in the
West Philippine Sea.
Are the waters enclosed by Chinas 9-dashed lines part of the EEZ of China
such that Chinas EEZ overlaps with the EEZ of the Philippines?