The arbitral tribunal's award is legally binding and final.

PV: The Arbitration Tribunal has just issued a ruling concerning the role of historical rights and sources of maritime rights in the South China Sea, the status of certain specific structures and their maritime zones, as well as the legality of China's actions that the Philippines considers to be in violation of the Convention. Could you please elaborate on the basic points that the Philippines submitted to the Tribunal?

Associate Professor, Dr. Pham Quang Minh:First, to initiate legal proceedings under this mechanism, the Philippines must meet the following procedural conditions: Firstly, proving the existence of a dispute regarding the interpretation and application of UNCLOS between the Philippines and China; secondly, having exchanged views on dispute resolution with China without reaching a resolution; and thirdly, neither side having chosen any other dispute resolution mechanism instead of UNCLOS. China argued that the Philippines was not permitted to initiate legal proceedings because it had not fulfilled these conditions. However, in its ruling on jurisdiction, the Arbitral Tribunal affirmed that the Philippines had fulfilled the procedural requirements and recognized the Philippines' right to unilaterally initiate legal proceedings.

Regarding the substance of the case, in order to initiate proceedings before the Arbitration Tribunal, the disputes brought by the Philippines must be disputes concerning the interpretation and implementation of UNCLOS, and must not fall under any exceptions for which the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. In its arguments submitted to the Tribunal, the Philippines requested the Tribunal to consider 15 submissions. In its jurisdictional ruling on October 29, 2015, the Tribunal rejected China's argument that these were disputes over sovereignty or maritime delimitation; and concluded that it had jurisdiction over seven of the Philippines' 15 submissions concerning the following issues: Classification of nine entities; determination of the Philippines' traditional fishing zones and rights at Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island); and China's violations of environmental protection and maritime safety. The remaining eight of the 15 submissions concerned the following issues: the Nine-Dash Line; The determination that the Scarborough Shoal and the Seagrass Garden fall within the Philippines' Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, and other violations by China concerning fisheries and oil and gas within the Philippines' EEZ and continental shelf, as well as China's exacerbation of the dispute, will be further considered and concluded in the substantive ruling of the case.

The basic contents that the Philippines submitted to the Court consisted of four main groups of issues.First,The Philippines requested the Arbitration Tribunal to declare China's nine-dash line claim in the South China Sea contrary to UNCLOS. The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historical rights to resources within the waters of the "nine-dash line." Although Chinese and Vietnamese seafarers and fishermen, as well as those from other countries, have historically exploited and utilized these areas in the South China Sea, there is no evidence to suggest that China has historically exercised exclusive control over the entire area or its resources. Furthermore, China's historical rights to resources within the "nine-dash line" are nullified because they are inconsistent with the provisions on the Exclusive Economic Zone in the Convention. On that basis, the Arbitration Tribunal affirmed that China's claims of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and "historical rights" to the maritime areas within the "nine-dash line" are contrary to the provisions of UNCLOS and have no legal validity, as these claims exceed the maritime areas that China is entitled to under UNCLOS.

Secondly,The Philippines requested the Arbitration Tribunal to clarify the legal status of several structures in the South China Sea. According to the Philippines, Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, Subi Reef, Gaven Reef, and McKennan Reef, including Hughes Reef, are "submerged shoals," meaning they are above water at low tide and below water at high tide. Under UNCLOS, submerged shoals are not entitled to territorial seas, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), or continental shelves. Of these submerged shoals, the Philippines requested the Tribunal to determine that Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal fall within the Philippines' EEZ and continental shelf.

In addition to the intermittently submerged shoals, the Philippines also requested the Arbitration Tribunal to conclude that Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan), Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are merely "rocks" because they "are not habitable and do not have their own economic life." Therefore, they only have a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea and are not entitled to the status of an EEZ and continental shelf.

Third,The Philippines requested the Arbitration Tribunal to declare several of China's recent activities in the South China Sea illegal. Specifically, China has illegally interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the Philippines' sovereign rights to biological and non-biological resources in the Philippines' Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf. China's interference with the traditional fishing activities of Filipino fishermen at Scarborough Shoal, hindering their livelihoods, is illegal. China has violated its obligations under UNCLOS regarding the protection and conservation of the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal. China's occupation and construction at Mischief Reef violate UNCLOS provisions on artificial islands, structures, and constructions at sea; violate its obligations to protect and conserve the marine environment as stipulated by UNCLOS; and constitute illegal acts aimed at seizing these entities. China has violated its obligations under UNCLOS by deploying its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner, posing a serious risk of collision to Philippine ships navigating around Scarborough Shoal. Furthermore, China has obstructed the Philippines' right of navigation, hindering the resupply of Philippine soldiers on Second Thomas Shoal, endangering their health and morale.

Fourth,The Philippines requested the Court to conclude that China is not permitted to make any further illegal claims or activities in the future. It must not continue making illegal claims or conducting illegal activities as listed in the Philippines' complaint; China must respect and refrain from further violations of the Philippines' rights and freedoms in the future and must respect its environmental protection obligations; the entities in the Spratly Islands have a maximum territorial sea of ​​12 nautical miles, none of them have a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, therefore China is not permitted to claim an EEZ and continental shelf for these entities.

PV: Professor, could you please tell us what necessary measures the Arbitration Tribunal took throughout the proceedings to verify the authenticity of the submissions made by the Philippines?

Associate Professor, Dr. Pham Quang Minh:Because China pursued a policy of "neither accepting nor participating in the arbitration process unilaterally initiated by the Philippines," the Court's task became more challenging. This was evident in the fact that, in addition to a comprehensive and objective review, the Court also had to consider issues that China might raise if it participated. Therefore, the Court carefully considered all the evidence presented by the Philippines.

The Court posed numerous questions to the Philippines, requesting that the Philippines supplement and clarify many aspects of its submitted documents. The arbitrator appointed to represent China at the Arbitration Tribunal also raised many issues with both the panel of judges and the Philippines to ensure that the Court's final decision was truly objective and reflected all the facts of the dispute. In addition, the Court appointed independent experts tasked with reporting to the Court on technical issues and gathering historical evidence related to structures in the South China Sea, and providing this evidence to the parties involved in the case for their comments.

PV: Why did the Court declare that it had sufficient jurisdiction to hear this case, Professor?

Associate Professor, Dr. Pham Quang Minh:In its ruling on jurisdiction on October 29, 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal affirmed that it was legally and formally established. This is based on Article 288 of the Convention, which states that “In the event of a dispute concerning whether an arbitral tribunal or body has jurisdiction, this matter shall be determined by the tribunal or body itself.” During the proceedings on jurisdiction (July 2015), issues related to the Tribunal's jurisdiction were thoroughly discussed. Based on the outcome of the proceedings, on October 29, 2015, the Tribunal issued a ruling on jurisdiction, rejecting China's claim that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The ruling was issued on [date].12-7-2016To resolve the remaining issue of jurisdiction that the Court did not decide in its Judgment on Jurisdiction dated October 29, 2015.

It should also be noted that, in accordance with Article 296 of the Convention and Article 11 of Annex VII, the ruling dated12-7-2016It is legally binding and final on the parties in dispute.

PV: Thank you very much, Associate Professor, Doctor.

According to Hong Hanh, reporter for Nhan Dan Newspaper.