highly interrelated histories of the region, no sole claimant has been able to provide conclusive historical evidence of exclusive control over the sea or islands, thereby invalidating claims that supersede modern delimitations (Mirski 2015).

In accordance to UNCLOS, coastal and archipelagic states are subject to territorial sea extending 12 nautical miles from their coastline, in which sovereign territorial rights are exercised. In addition to this, states are subject to an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) which extends 200 nautical miles from their coastline (see Figure 1). Within an EEZ, a state has sovereign rights to natural resources, both living and non-living, and have exclusive rights to build artificial islands (United Nations 1982). The scope and basis for China’s nine-dash line claim are relatively ambiguous and have not defined in terms of sovereignty claims or maritime jurisdictional claims. Despite this, aggressive military expansion in the region suggest signs of China pursuing jurisdiction over the entire area demarcated by the nine dashes (Maritime Awareness Project 2019). The Chinese claim first appeared on official maps in 1948, after a period in which China was determining many of its national borders. As others have also laid claims in the contested sea, disputes have broken out over both islands and sea space. Over time China, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia have all built on islands in the Spratlys to further project and justify their claims, but China’s advance has been the most significant in recent times, drawing widespread international attention (Hayton 2016).

International Tribunal:

After decades of failing to resolve their dispute with China over the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal, the Philippines initiated an international tribunal, submitting a total of 15 disputes regarding the compatibility of China’s claims with UNCLOS, the status of geographical features in the SCS, and whether Chinese activities within the Philippines’ EEZ had violated its sovereign rights. This was the first instance of another claimant country bringing its claim against China under UNCLOS (CFR 2018). Despite China’s refusal to be involved, the arbitral tribunal was convened in The Hauge on June 2013 and constituted 5 experts on the law of the sea. The tribunal ruled in favour of the Philippines in July 2016, ruling that China’s nine-dash line claim was incompatible with UNCLOS, that none of the features in the Spratlys were entitled to an EEZ, and that China had violated the Philippines sovereign rights within its EEZ through reclamation work and interfering with Filipino fishing boats.

The response to the tribunal varied, with most claimant countries issuing statements acknowledging the ruling but failing to call China to abide by it. China said the ruling was null and void, calling it a “mere scrap of paper” and saying it would not accept it “under any circumstances” (Aljazeera 2016). Taiwan, whose claims mirror that of China’s, also rejected the ruling, reiterating its sovereignty claim. In contrast to this, extra-regional powers including the U.S., Japan, Australia and many EU countries said that the ruling was legally binding and should be followed by both countries (Storey 2016). According to international law, the ruling is binding on both parties and cannot be appealed, but in practice there is