Presented by:

Faith Therese Gandola and Jorey L. Ludea

 Logo of the Convention

Signed 10 December 1982

Effective 16 November 1994

Condition 60 ratifications

Signatories 157
Introduction:
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS), which came into force on
November 16, 1994, is an international treaty that
provides a regulatory framework for the use of the
worlds seas and oceans, inter alia, to ensure the
conservation and equitable usage of resources
and the marine environment and to ensure the
protection and preservation of the living resources
of the sea.
 Continuation.

UNCLOS also addresses such other matters as

sovereignty, rights of usage in maritime zones, and
navigational rights. As of January 10 2014, 166
States have ratified, acceded to, or succeeded to,
UNCLOS. The full text and status of UNCLOS can be
accessed through the United Nations Division for
Oceans Affairs and the Law of the Sea.
Functions:
The United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also known as
the Law of the Sea Treaty, is the
international agreement that defined the
limits of the territorial seas of nations
and the areas in which they could exploit
marine resources.
Purpose :
The Law of the Sea
Convention defines the rights and
responsibilities of nations with
respect to their use of the world's
oceans, establishing guidelines for
businesses, the environment, and
the management of marine natural
resources.
 The law of the sea is a specialized branch of public international
law;
Its historical roots are in the Roman law exemplified by the
doctrines of res nullius, res publicus and res communis
The customary international law of the sea was first codified
through the four Geneva Conventions of 1958; eventually,
culminating into the comprehensive UN Convention on the Law
of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS)
Land and sea has traditionally been divided by a line represented
by the low water line (LWL)
A belt of water (originally 3 nm wide) seaward of the LWL
comprises the territorial sea beyond which lies the high seas
Under UNCLOS, there are several maritime zones appertaining to
the coastal state
The high seas are beyond the limits of any national jurisdiction
7
 THE PHILIPPINE BASELINES LAW

Baselines serve as basis for a countrys maritime jurisdiction and a

means to establish maritime boundaries with neighboring coastal
States.
Establishment of archipelagic baselines will meet requirements
of statehood fulfill Philippine treaty obligations under UNCLOS
clearly define Philippine maritime zones under UNCLOS including
the ECS claim
Prior to RA 9522, Philippine baselines law is not compliant with
UNCLOS
On 10 March 2009, the President of the Philippines signed into
law Republic Act 9522. This was immediately protested by China
and Vietnam.
 Legal Framework

Republic Act 3046 (1961) as amended by Republic Act

5446 or the Philippine Baselines Law established
Philippine baselines and basepoints
1987 Philippine Constitution
Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991)
2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Code of Conduct
of Parties in the South China Sea (DoC)
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS)
 Article 47, UNCLOS
archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines
joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and
drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such
baselines are included the main islands and an area in which
the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land,
including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1
length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles,
except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines
enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a
maximum length of 125 nautical miles;
drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable
extent from the general configuration of the archipelago;
 Article 47, UNCLOS cont
Such baselines shall not be drawn to and from low-tide
elevations, unless lighthouses or similar installations which are
permanently above sea level have been built on them or where a
low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not
exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the nearest
island;
The system of such baselines shall not be applied by an
..
archipelagic State in such a manner as to cut off from the high
seas or the exclusive economic zone the territorial sea of another
State;
If a part of the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State lies
between two parts of an immediately adjacent neighboring State,
existing rights and all other legitimate interests which the latter
State has traditionally exercised in such waters and all rights
stipulated by agreement between those States shall continue and
be respected;
 Article 47, UNCLOS cont..

For the purpose of computing the ratio of water to

land under paragraph 1, land areas may include waters
lying within the fringing reefs of islands and atolls,
including that part of a steep-sided oceanic plateau
which is enclosed or nearly enclosed by a chain of
limestone islands and drying reefs lying on the
perimeter of the plateau;
The baselines drawn in accordance with this article
shall be shown on charts of a scale or scales adequate
for ascertaining their position.
 Article 121, UNCLOS

with respect to the other islands which do

not geographically form an integral part of the
archipelago, Regime of Islands principle allows
a different legal treatment for the purpose of
the baselines.
 Chinas 9-dashed Lines

In 2013, China released a new map of China, adding a 10th

dash on the eastern side of Taiwan. In its 2013 map, China
claims the 10 dashed lines are its national boundaries
without explaining the legal basis or giving the fixed
coordinates for the dashes.
The 2013 China map was published by SinoMaps Press, under
the jurisdiction of Chinas State Bureau of Surveying and
Mapping.
This means the 2013 Map is an official Chinese government
map.
In its Note Verbale of June 7, 2013 to China, the Philippines
stated it "strongly objects to the indication that the ninedash
lines are China's national boundaries in the West Philippine
Sea/South China Sea.
 What is the Effect of Chinas National Boundaries
under the 9-dashed Lines?

The Philippines loses about 80% of its EEZ facing the West
Philippine Sea, including the entire Reed Bank and part of
the Malampaya gas field. Malaysia loses also about 80% of
its EEZ in Sabah and Sarawak facing the South China Sea, as
well as most of its active gas and oil fields in the same area.
Vietnam loses about 50% of its total EEZ. Brunei loses
about 90% of its total EEZ. Indonesia loses about 30% of its
EEZ facing the South China Sea in Natuna Islands, whose
surrounding waters comprise the largest gas field in
Southeast Asia.
Why Hasn't the US Signed the Law of the Sea
Treaty?

The UNCLOS came into force in 1994. Although the United

States now recognizes the UNCLOS as a codification of
customary international law, it has not ratified it.

The U.S. has not accepted UNCLOS because of opposition

from Republicans in the Senate, where treaties must be
approved by a two-thirds' vote.
 Where to settle UNCLOS cases?
The International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany;
The International Court of Justice in The
Hague, The Netherlands;
Ad hoc arbitration (in accordance with Annex
VII of UNCLOS); or
A special arbitral tribunal constituted for
certain categories of disputes (established
under Annex VIII of UNCLOS).
PHILIPPINES FILES CASE AGAINST PRC
The Philippines initiates proceedings against the PRC
under Annex VII to UNCLOS. The Notification and
Statement of Claim outlines the Philippines grievances
against China and legal base for its claims, as well as
discusses the nature of the various maritime features in
question. It states that the Philippines is seeking a ruling
that declares that claims in in the South China Sea must
comport with UNCLOS, which would invalidate Chinas
nine-dash line; classifies maritime features occupied by
China as rocks, low tide elevations, or submerged banks,
but not islands; and declares the Philippines right to
operate inside of its EEZ and continental shelf as outlined
by UNCLOS without Chinese harassment.
 CHINA RESPONDS
China submits a Note
Verbale rejecting the claims made by
the Philippines in the Notification
and Statement of Claim, and calling
on the Philippines to resolve the
dispute through bilateral
negotiations. China states that the
Arbitral Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in
the case.
 CHINA REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE
ARBITRAL AUTHORITY
China issues a Note Verbale stating that it does not
accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines
and therefore will not participate in the proceedings.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague
issues a press release outlining the rules of
procedure and the initial timetable.
The Philippines submits its Memorial to the Arbitral
Tribunal. The ten volume Memorial contains the
Philippines legal analysis and evidence for the case,
as well as argues that the Arbitral Tribunal indeed
has jurisdiction over the case.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE SETS
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS
The Permanent Court of Arbitration at
the International Court of Justice issues
a press release providing updates on the
case and further outlining the
proceedings by setting December 15,
2014 as the deadline for China to submit
its Counter-Memorial as a response to
the Philippines Memorial.
 Award on Jurisdiction and
Admissibility
On 29 October 2015, the PCA published the award by the
tribunal on Jurisdiction and Admissibility[41] for the case. The
tribunal found that it has jurisdiction to consider the following
seven Philippines Submissions. The number is the Philippines
Submissions number. The tribunal reserved consideration of
its jurisdiction to rule on No. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 14.
No.3 Philippines position that Scarborough Shoal is a rock
under Article 121(3).
No.4 Philippines position that Mischief Reef, Second Thomas
Shoal, and Subi Reef are low tide elevations that do not
generate entitlement to maritime zones.
No.6 Whether Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including
Hughes Reef) are low-tide elevations that do not generate
any maritime entitlements of their own".
Cont.
No.7 Whether Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery
Cross Reef do or do not generate an entitlement to an
exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
No.10 "premised on [the] fact that China has
unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from
carrying out traditional fishing activities within the
territorial sea of Scarborough Shoal."
No.11 Chinas failure to protect and preserve the
marine environment at these two shoals [Scarborough
Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal].
No.13 Philippines protest against Chinas purported
law enforcement activities as violating the Convention
on the International Regulations for the Prevention of
Collisions at Sea and also violating UNCLOS.
Cont
The tribunal stated in the award that there are
disputes in all of the 15 submissions from the
Philippines. but for submissions such as No.3,
No.4, No.6 and No.7, no known claims from the
Philippines prior to the initiation of arbitration
exist, and China was not aware or opposed such
claims prior to the initiation of
arbitration. Chinese Society of International
Law (CSIL) states that the tribunal was trying to
hide its incapability to prove that maritime
entitlements of the nine features constitute the
disputes.
Cont
For Submission No.8 to No.14, the
tribunal held the view that lawfulness of
China's activities in the South China Sea
is not related to sovereignty. CSIL has
asserted that disagreements concern
territorial sovereignty, and constitute no
dispute with respect to the claims
advanced by the Philippines.
Award
On July 12, 2016, the Permanent Court of
Arbitration published an arbitration award by
the tribunal which it states is final and binding
as set out in the Convention.Conclusions
expressed in the award included the following:
Regarding the "Nine-Dash Line" and China's
claim in the maritime areas of the South China
Sea.
The [UNCLOS] Convention defines the scope
of maritime entitlements in the South China
Sea, which may not extend beyond the limits
imposed therein.
Cont
Chinas claims to historic rights, or other
sovereign rights or jurisdiction, with respect
to the maritime areas of the South China Sea
encompassed by the relevant part of the
nine-dash line are contrary to the
Convention and without lawful effect to the
extent that they exceed the geographic and
substantive limits of Chinas maritime
entitlements under the Convention. The
Convention superseded any historic rights or
other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in
excess of the limits imposed therein.
 Thank You !!!

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL