{
  "id": "R44555",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44555",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 454075,
      "date": "2016-07-06",
      "retrieved": "2016-09-09T19:15:38.636697",
      "title": "Arbitration Case Between the Philippines and China Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)",
      "summary": "On July 12, 2016, an arbitral tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is expected to issue a ruling in a case between the Philippines and the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC or China). The Philippines, a U.S. ally, initiated the case in January 2013 under the convention\u2019s compulsory dispute settlement provisions, seeking primarily to clarify the two countries\u2019 potential maritime rights in the South China Sea. The Philippines and China are both parties to UNCLOS. The United States has a policy of operating consistent with the convention, but has not ratified it and is not a party to it. China argues that the tribunal lacks legal jurisdiction to rule in the case. It has declined to participate in the proceedings and has said that it will not accept the tribunal\u2019s final award in the case. \nThe arbitration case has been closely watched for the implications it may have for the tensions between the Philippines and China over their maritime disputes in the South China Sea, for the overlapping claims of China and other governments to maritime rights, for U.S.-China relations, and for international law more broadly. The award will be legally binding only for the two parties to the dispute\u2014the Philippines and China. Some observers argue, however, that it could help clarify issues relevant to the claims of all the governments contesting territory in the sea\u2014Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. The U.S. government has suggested that such clarification could help claimants restart conversations about how to manage the sea in ways that lessen the chances for maritime incidents, protect the sea\u2019s role as a conduit for as much as $5 trillion in annual commercial shipping, and allow for joint exploitation of fishing stocks and hydrocarbons. If China follows through on its pledge not to accept the ruling, however, some observers warn that its stance could deepen regional tensions and undermine the authority of UNCLOS as an institution and of international law more broadly.\nObama Administration officials have made several statements supporting the Philippines\u2019 right to bring the case and emphasizing the binding nature of the tribunal\u2019s award. In the 114th Congress, S.Res. 183 (Schatz) and S. 2865 (Cardin) call on the parties to implement the tribunal\u2019s ruling, and S.Res. 370 (Cardin) urges the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to develop a common approach to reaffirm the ruling. All three bills are pending in the Senate.\nThe Philippines\u2019 case consists of 15 submissions covering four broad areas. Those four areas are the legality under UNCLOS of China\u2019s ambiguous so-called nine-dash line claim in the South China Sea; the maritime entitlements generated under UNCLOS by specific geographic features, most of them controlled by China; the legality of China\u2019s alleged harassment of Philippines vessels; and China\u2019s alleged violations of an UNCLOS provision requiring parties to protect the marine environment. Many analysts see a potential ruling on the legal status of China\u2019s nine-dash line claim to be the most significant aspect of the case, although a ruling on the issue is not assured. The two Philippine submissions related to it are among eight on which the tribunal decided in 2015 to defer consideration of whether it has jurisdiction to rule.\nChina has worked to line up international support for its position on the arbitration case. It could choose to escalate its actions in the South China Sea after the ruling. Beijing has also held out the possibility that \u201cthere will be no incident at all\u201d if new Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte would agree to set aside the ruling. Analysts expect the United States to continue to encourage its allies and partners to support the ruling. Other potential options for U.S. responses following the ruling include reiterating calls for the governments of China and the Association of Southeast Nations to reach early agreement on a meaningful Code of Conduct, conducting additional Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) near features covered in the tribunal\u2019s award, supporting pressure on China in UNCLOS bodies, and scheduling Senate advice and consent to the Administration on ratification of UNCLOS.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44555",
          "sha1": "ebf14f0a911d892ba1d684d3401cd8e689032d17",
          "filename": "files/20160706_R44555_ebf14f0a911d892ba1d684d3401cd8e689032d17.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44555",
          "sha1": "3fa4dde8410a072f65b9aa795ef876a2e41c8215",
          "filename": "files/20160706_R44555_3fa4dde8410a072f65b9aa795ef876a2e41c8215.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Asian Affairs",
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}