Tribunal noted that, since the start of the proceedings, China had built a large artificial island in the Philippines’ EEZ, caused irreparable damage to the coral reef ecosystem, and permanently destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features that formed part of the parties’ dispute. All of these actions had aggravated the dispute.
Future conduct of the parties
Finally, in a pyrrhic victory for China, the Tribunal ruled that it was not necessary to grant the Philippines’ requests for judgments declaring that China should bring its conduct into compliance with the Convention. These requests fell within the basic rule of international law that States should comply with their treaty obligations. It goes without saying that both China and the Philippines were required to comply with the Convention and the Award in accordance with that basic rule. The Convention itself is clear that awards under Annex VII “shall be complied with by the parties to the dispute.” The Tribunal indicated that it expected as much from these parties. Commentary
Yesterday’s ruling in the South China Sea Arbitration brings to an end a case that has generated international attention due to its significant legal and geopolitical implications. The Tribunal has decided an issue of fundamental importance under the Convention for the States involved – the legality of China’s nine-dashed line claim. It has also put all States Parties on notice that they can be held accountable under the Convention for failure to protect and preserve the environment in the world’s oceans and seas.
The full extent of those implications remains to be seen, particularly now that all eyes are on China to see whether it will comply with the rule of law in its international conduct. As noted above, China has said that the ruling has “no binding force”. It added that the Tribunal’s conduct and award was “unjust and unlawful”.
- Volterra Fietta
Arbitration: Reasonable opportunity to present case
- Albert Monichino QC
Amasya Enterprises Pty Ltd v Asta Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 326
This recent decision of the Arbitration List judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria suggests that the requirement that parties will be given a “reasonable opportunity” to present their case will be viewed robustly by a supervising court and not through the prism of domestic court litigation.