Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal in Philippines v. China Under UNCLOS and in the Absence of China. (2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Parlett, Kate
• Is Part Of: AJIL unbound. Volume 110( 2016)
• Page Start: 266
• Page End: 272
• Publication Date: 2016
• Subjects: International law -- Periodicals; 341.05
• DOI: 10.1017/S2398772300009144
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2398-7723

Abstract

Abstract : It is not uncommon for decisions of international tribunals to be reported in the pages of the Washington Post or feature on the BBC News website. It is rather less common for awards to feature on the giant screens of New York's Times Square. But less than two weeks after the Arbitral Tribuna lunder Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea issued its Awardin Philippines v.China, a three-minute video featuring China's position was broadcast repeatedly on the screen better known forbroadcasting New Year's Eve festivities than argumentation on the competence of international tribunals. The video asserted that China's "indisputable sovereignty over [the South China Sea islands] has sufficient historic and legal basis" and that "the Arbitral Tribunalvainly attempted to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea." It further stated that "China did not participate in the illegal South China Sea arbitration, nor accepts the Awardso as to defend the solemnity of international law." This latter statement goes to the very heart of the Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention) and its competence to decide the case despite China's nonparticipation in the proceedings.