Submission 11: China has violated UNCLOSs environmental protection obligations

at Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal

Submission 11 concerns the claim of the Philippines that Chinese acts cause damage and
do not protect and preserve the marine environment surrounding the Scarborough Shoals
and the Second Thomas Shoal.

Ruling: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines. China engaged in environmentally
harmful fishing/harvesting practices at Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal.

Legal Basis: The Tribunal finds that China has, through its toleration and protection of,
and failure to prevent Chinese fishing vessels engaging in harmful harvesting activities of
endangered species at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal and other features in the
Spratly Islands, breached Articles 192 to protect and preserve the marine environment,
has conducted dredging in such a way as to pollute the marine environment with
sediment in breach of Article 194(1), and has violated its duty under Article 194(5) to
take measures necessary to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the
habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life.
The Tribunal further finds that China has, through its island-building activities at
Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, Subi
Reef and Mischief Reef, breached Articles 192, 194(1), 194(5), 197, 123, and 206 of the
Convention. (p. 397)
Jurisdiction: The Tribunal will not deem activities to be military in nature when China
itself has consistently resisted such classifications and affirmed the opposite at the highest
level. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts Chinas repeatedly affirmed position that civilian
use comprises the primary (if not the only) motivation underlying the dramatic alterations
on Mischief Reef. As civilian activity, the Tribunal notes that Chinas conduct falls
outside the scope of Article 298(1)(b) and concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider
the Philippines Submission.

Reference:

Art. 192. States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.
Art. 194 (5). The measures taken in accordance with this Part shall include those necessary to protect and
preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and
other forms of marine life.

Submission 12: Chinas occupation and construction on Mischief Reef violate

UNCLOS provisions on artificial islands and environmental protection, and are
unlawful acts of attempted appropriation
Submission 12 relates to Mischief Reef, a low tide elevation, claimed by the Philippines
as part of the seabed and subsoil of its EEZ and continental shelf. It may be noted that
China claims the same feature and is engaged in construction and other activities there.

Ruling: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines. Environmental protection

provisions were violated at Mischief Reef; artificial island construction violated
Philippine sovereign rights within its EEZ; the appropriation claim is moot because
Mischief Reef is an LTE not capable of appropriation

Chinese artificial island construction has caused severe harm to the coral reef
environment and China has failed to stop its nationals from engaging in harmful and
destructive harvesting and fishing of endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams in
violation of UNCLOS.
Legal Basis: The Tribunal finds that China has, through its construction of installations
and artificial islands at Mischief Reef without the authorization of the Philippines,
breached Articles 60 and 80 of the Convention with respect to the Philippines sovereign
rights in its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. The Tribunal further finds
that, as a low-tide elevation, Mischief Reef is not capable of appropriation.

Reference:

Article 60 (1). In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct
and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of: (a) artificial islands; (b) installations
and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes; (c) installations and
structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.

Article 80. Article 60 applies mutatis mutandis to artificial islands, installations and structures on the
continental shelf.

Submission 13: China has violated UNCLOS by dangerously operating law

enforcement vessels creating serious risk of collision near Scarborough Shoal

Submission 13 is about law enforcement activities of China, which the Philippines assert
as a violation of its obligations under the Convention on International Regulations for the
prevention of collisions at Sea and UNCLOS;
Ruling: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines. China violated UNCLOS and
other treaty provisions on maritime safety.

Chinese law enforcement vessels violated maritime safety obligations by creating a

serious risk of collision on two occasions in April and May 2012 during the Scarborough
Shoal standoff.
The Tribunal considers China to have repeatedly violated the Rules of the COLREGS
(International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972) over the course of the
interactions described by the crew of the Philippine vessels and as credibly assessed in
the two expert reports. Where Chinese vessels were under an obligation to yield, they
persisted; where the regulations called for a safe distance, they infringed it. The actions
are not suggestive of occasional negligence in failing to adhere to the COLREGS, but
rather point to a conscious disregard of what the regulations require. The various
violations are underscored by factors such as the large disparity in size of the Chinese and
Philippine vessels, the shallow waters in which the incidents took place, and the creation
of a two metre-high wake causing additional risk to the Philippines crews.
Legal Basis: The Tribunal finds that China has, by virtue of the conduct of Chinese law
enforcement vessels in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal, created serious risk of collision
and danger to Philippine vessels and personnel. The Tribunal finds China to have violated
Rules 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the COLREGS and, as a consequence, to be in breach of
Article 94 of the Convention.

Reference:
UNCLOS
Art 94 (1). Every State shall effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and
social matters over ships flying its flag.
COLREGS
Rule 2. Responsibility
(a). Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the
consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be
required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
(b). In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and
collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may
make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.
Rule 6. Safe Speed Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and
effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing
circumstances and conditions.
Rule 7. Risk of collision
Rule 8. Action to avoid collision
Rule 15. Crossing situation
Rule 16. Action by give-way vessel