Position Of Other Countries.docx

Throughout June and July 2015, the Tribunal received requests from several States, interested in the arbitration, for copies of relevant documents and for permission to attend the Hearing on Jurisdiction. After seeking the views of the Parties on each occasion, the Tribunal granted such requests from Malaysia, Japan, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Thailand, and Brunei.

II. VIETNAM -

sent to the Tribunal a “Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam Transmitted to the Arbitral Tribunal in the Proceedings between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China.”

In addition to a large delegation from the Philippines, representatives from Australia, the Republic of Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam attended the hearing as observers.

-

Viet Nam’s Statement requested that the Tribunal give due regard to the position of Viet Nam with respect to:

-

(a) Viet Nam has “no doubt that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in these proceedings”;

I. MALAYSIA

-

(b) preserving Viet Nam’s “rights and interests of a legal nature”;

-

(c) noting that the Philippines does not request this Tribunal to consider issues not subject to its jurisdiction under Article 288 of the Convention (namely questions of sovereignty and maritime delimitation);

-

(d) “resolutely protesting and rejecting” any claim by China based on the “nine-dash line”; and

-

(e) supporting the Tribunal’s competence to interpret and apply Articles 60, 80, 194(5), 206, 293(1), and 300 of the Convention and other relevant instruments.

-

Viet Nam stated that none of the maritime features referred to by the Philippines in these proceedings can “generate maritime entitlements in excess of 12 nautical miles since they are low-tide elevations or ‘rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own’ under Article 121(3) of the Convention.”

-

Viet Nam reserved “the right to seek to intervene.”

- sent to the Tribunal two Notes Verbales, drawing attention to an issue with certain maps contained in the Award on Jurisdiction (which had been extracted, for illustrative purposes, from the Philippines’ Memorial), and requesting that the Tribunal show due regard to the rights of Malaysia (“Malaysia’s Communication”). The Malaysian Embassy emphasized that it was not seeking to intervene in the proceedings. PHILIPPINES’ ANSWER: With respect to the maps, the Philippines noted that it had presented the maps in such a way as to preserve its own claim but would leave the issue to the Tribunal’s discretion. With respect to Malaysia’s assertions that issues in dispute may directly or indirectly affect its rights and interests, the Philippines noted that this question had already been dealt with by the Tribunal. The Philippines considered Malaysia’s Communication therefore to be “without merit” and also pointed out that it was “untimely”, in light of the fact that Malaysia had been an observer since 10 June 2015 and until now made no effort to raise its concerns. CHINA’S RESPONSE: China did not comment on Malaysia’s Communication. On 29 June 2016, the Tribunal forwarded the Philippines’ comments to China and acknowledged to Malaysia that it had received and taken note of its Communication.

JAPAN BRUNEI INDONESIA THAILAND