The Tribunal considers that this provision applies equally to the interaction of the Convention with other

norms of international law, such as historic rights, that do not take the form of an agreement.
customary law is “law consisting of customs that are accepted as legal requirements or. obligatory rules of
conduct; practices and beliefs that are so vital and intrinsic a part of a. social and economic system that they
are treated as if they were laws”.

If an “island” sinks into the sea at high tide, then by international law, it's not really an island.

It would be necessary to show that China had historically sought to prohibit or restrict the exploitation of such
resources by the nationals of other States and that those States had acquiesced in such restrictions. In the
Tribunal’s view, such a claim cannot be supported. The Tribunal is unable to identify any evidence that would
suggest that China historically regulated or controlled fishing in the South China Sea, beyond the limits of the
territorial sea.

LTEs are not entitled to maritime zones of their own and cannot be the subject of a sovereignty claim unless
they are within 12 nautical miles (‘NM’) of an island.

“Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic
zone or continental shelf.”

The Tribunal held that a feature is not a rock if, objectively speaking, it can, in its natural condition, sustain
either a stable community of people or an economic activity that is not dependent on outside resources or is
not purely extractive in nature

On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that all the high-tide features in the Spratlys are rocks (at [643]-[646]):
these include Scarborough Shoal, Johnson Reef, Fiery Cross Reef and Itu Aba Island. Therefore, each feature
only has a 12-mile territorial sea and not an EEZ.

In so concluding, the Tribunal noted that modern habitations on many of these features, being dependent on
outside resources, are not evidence of whether they can sustain human habitation or economic activity in
their natural condition (at [578]). Temporary occupation of the features in the past also did not amount to
habitation by stable communities and all historical economic activity had been purely extractive (at [624]). In
fact, the Tribunal presumed that if a feature has never hosted a stable community, “the most reasonable
conclusion would be that the natural conditions are simply too difficult for such a community to form and that
the feature is not capable of sustaining such habitation”.
In so concluding, the Tribunal noted that modern habitations on many of these features, being dependent on
outside resources, are not evidence of whether they can sustain human habitation or economic activity in
their natural condition (at [578]). Temporary occupation of the features in the past also did not amount to
habitation by stable communities and all historical economic activity had been purely extractive (at [624]). In
fact, the Tribunal presumed that if a feature has never hosted a stable community, “the most reasonable
conclusion would be that the natural conditions are simply too difficult for such a community to form and that
the feature is not capable of sustaining such habitation”.

since Mischief Reef does not generate a territorial sea, nations such as the United States and Australia may
extend their freedom of navigation and overflight operations to within 12 NM of Mischief Reef. This could lead
to tense engagements with Chinese military vessels and aircraft.

the Tribunal held that both China and the Philippines had historic rights in the territorial sea around
Scarborough Shoal (at [805]). Therefore, in preventing Philippine fishermen from accessing the Shoal, China
violated its duty to respect the historic rights of the Philippines (at [812]). Furthermore, China also breached
its obligations under the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972
when its vessels, in preventing Philippine vessels from entering the Shoal, created a serious risk of collision
with Philippine vessels.

even if China does not comply, the Award confirms the compulsory nature of the UNCLOS dispute resolution
mechanism and reinforces the rule of law in the oceans. The Award also upholds the EEZ regime, one of the
predominant aspects of the Law of the Sea. It should, however, be noted that UNCLOS lacks a formal
enforcement regime; there is, therefore, no legal means of enforcing China’s compliance with the Award.
Nonetheless, China’s failure to comply with the Award could naturally have negative ramifications for its
international reputation.