2017•World Journal of English LanguageRequires access

The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s Exegesis of the Regime of Islands and China’s Nine-Dash-Line Claims in the South China Sea Arbitration

Theodore Okonkwo

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The big South China Sea is one of the most dangerous hotspot in the world. By words and actions, there are six claimants of the South China Sea. The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines are some of them. Each want to control the numerous features and resources in boosting their economic interests. The United Nations was actively involved in the settlement of the disputes for their own security and economic interests. The great ownership question that comes about in this is the rightful owner of the South China Sea which involved the Nine-Dash Line claims by the government of the People’s Republic of China, which laid claims to the Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, the Pratas Islands, the Maccles field Bank and the Scarborough Shoal. In the Arbitration between the two parties: China and Philippines, Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was relied upon by the tribunal which gave award on 29th October, 2015 on admissibility and jurisdiction. However the objection that was presented by China was rejected by the tribunal. This was because of the issue of the territorial sovereignty of China in the South China Sea which was not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The tribunal found interalia that the submission made by Philippines showed the dispute between the parties putting in mind the Convention interpretation and application. The requirements under article 283 of the Convention were met by the Philippines in regards to the settlement of the dispute. This paper examines the South China Sea arbitration award and the interpretation and the application of the regime of islands under article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The big South China Sea is one of the most dangerous hotspot in the world. By words and actions, there are six claimants of the South China Sea. The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines are some of them. Each want to control the numerous features and resources in boosting their economic interests. The United Nations was actively involved in the settlement of the disputes for their own security and economic interests. The great ownership question that comes about in this is the rightful owner of the South China Sea which involved the Nine-Dash Line claims by the government of the People’s Republic of China, which laid claims to the Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, the Pratas Islands, the Maccles field Bank and the Scarborough Shoal. In the Arbitration between the two parties: China and Philippines, Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was relied upon by the tribunal which gave award on 29th October, 2015 on admissibility and jurisdiction. However the objection that was presented by China was rejected by the tribunal. This was because of the issue of the territorial sovereignty of China in the South China Sea which was not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The tribunal found interalia that the submission made by Philippines showed the dispute between the parties putting in mind the Convention interpretation and application. The requirements under article 283 of the Convention were met by the Philippines in regards to the settlement of the dispute. This paper examines the South China Sea arbitration award and the interpretation and the application of the regime of islands under article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The big South China Sea is one of the most dangerous hotspot in the world. By words and actions, there are six claimants of the South China Sea. The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines are some of them. Each want to control the numerous features and resources in boosting their economic interests. The United Nations was actively involved in the settlement of the disputes for their own security and economic interests. The great ownership question that comes about in this is the rightful owner of the South China Sea which involved the Nine-Dash Line claims by the government of the People’s Republic of China, which laid claims to the Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, the Pratas Islands, the Maccles field Bank and the Scarborough Shoal. In the Arbitration between the two parties: China and Philippines, Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was relied upon by the tribunal which gave award on 29th October, 2015 on admissibility and jurisdiction. However the objection that was presented by China was rejected by the tribunal. This was because of the issue of the territorial sovereignty of China in the South China Sea which was not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The tribunal found interalia that the submission made by Philippines showed the dispute between the parties putting in mind the Convention interpretation and application. The requirements under article 283 of the Convention were met by the Philippines in regards to the settlement of the dispute. This paper examines the South China Sea arbitration award and the interpretation and the application of the regime of islands under article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Key concepts: Tribunal, Arbitration, China, Law, Jurisdiction, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Political science, Sovereignty

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s Exegesis of the Regime of Islands and China’s Nine-Dash-Line Claims in the South China Sea Arbitration — Research Paper | ScholarLens