ABBREVIATIONS
GLOSSARY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES
Introduction
Chapter One： Background to and Course of the South China Sea Arbitration and the Position of the Chinese Government
Chapter Two： Jurisdiction
Ⅰ.The Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the Philippines' submissions which reflect a territorial and maritime delimitation dispute between China and the Philippines
1.1.There exists a territorial and maritime delimitation dispute between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea
1.2.The essence of the Philippines' submissions is the territorial and maritime delimitation issue between China and the Philippines
Ⅱ.The Tribunal erroneously found that the Philippines' submissions do not relate to the territorial and maritime delimitation dispute between China and the Philippines and erroneously exercised jurisdiction over these submissions
Ⅱ.1.The Tribunal erred in characterizing the dispute reflected in the Philippines' submissions by adopting a fragmentation approach and failed to objectively and properly identify the territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation essence of the Philippines' submissions
Ⅱ.2.The Tribunal， on the basis of subjective assumption instead of fact， rroneously found that the Philippines' submissions do not relate to territorial sovereignty
Ⅱ.3.The Tribunal misconstrued maritime delimitation， misin terpreted Article 298 of the Convention， and erroneously determined that the Philippines' submissions do not relate to maritime delimitation
Ⅱ.4.The Tribunal erred in finding that the Philippines' Submissions *** and 2 did not involve "historic rifle"" and failed to consider whether ""historic rights"" constitute relevant circumstances of maritime delimitation
Ⅲ.The Tribunal erred in finding that the Philippines' submissions reflected the disputes as it identified between China and the Philippines concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention
Ⅲ.1.International judicial practice in respect of determining the existence and nature of a dispute
Ⅲ.2.The Tribunal erred in identifying and characterizing a dispute with respect to the Philippines' Submissions ***and 2
Ⅲ.3.The Tribunal's identification and characterization of disputes with respect to the Philippines' Submissions No.3 through 7 are not well founded in fact or law
Ⅲ.4.The Tribunal failed to ascertain there exist disputes between China and the Philippines concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention with respect to the Philippines' Submissions No.8 to 14
Ⅳ.The Tribunal erred in its decision on the choice of means made by China and the Philippines for the settlement of disputes and its effect
Ⅳ.1.The Tribunal erred in finding no agreement between China and the Philippines to settle their dispute through negotiations
Ⅳ.2.The Tribunal erred in determining that China and the Philippines had resorted to negotiation but reached no settlement
Ⅳ.3.The Tribunal erred in finding that China and the Philippines had not excluded the compulsory dispute settlement procedures even if there existed an agreement
Ⅴ.The Tribunal erred in finding that the Philippines and China had exchanged views as required by Article 283
Ⅴ1.The Tribunal failed to ascertain whether the Philippines had fulfilled the obligation to exchange views on relevant ""disputes""
Ⅴ2.The Tribunal mismatched consultations between China and the Philippines concerning issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation with exchange of views regarding ""disputes"" identified by the Tribunalin the Philippines' submissions and means of their settlement
Ⅴ3.The Tribunal erroneously narrowed the obligation to exchange views under the Convention to that concerning merely the means of dispute settlement
Ⅵ.The Tribunal violated the non ultra petita rule and／or Article 10 of Annex Ⅶ
Ⅵ.1.The non ultra petzia rule
Ⅵ.2.The ""confinement requrement"" under Article 10 of Annex Ⅶ
Ⅵ.3.The violation of the non ultra petzia rule and Article 10 of Annex Ⅷ in this Arbitration
Chapter Three： Admissibility
Ⅰ.The Philippines made three rounds of major amendments to its
Ⅰ.1.The first round of major amendments were made prior to the submission of the Philippines' Memorial
Ⅰ.2.The second round of major amendments were made in the Philippines' Memorial
Ⅰ.3.The third round of major amendments were made at the end of the merits hearing
Ⅱ.The Tribunal failed to properly address the admissibility issues arising from the Philippines'amendments to its submissions
Ⅱ.1.The Tribunal failed to properly address the admissibility issues arising from the Ptulippines' amendments to its submissions， and even guided the Philippines to make amendments
Ⅱ.2.The Tribunal disregarded well—established standards of admissibility，invented a loose and ambiguous criterion and in any event did not apply them faithfully
Ⅱ.3.The Tribunal efroneously regarded the Philippines' claims in its 2014 Amended Statement of Claims as its original claims
Ⅲ.The Tribunal erred in allowing the Philippines' amendments to its Submissions No.11， 12（b） and 14 and finding them as formu—lated in the Final Submissions admissible
Ⅲ.1.The Tribunal erred in allowing the Philippines' amendments to its Subnussions No.11 and 12（b） and finding them as formulated in the Final Submissions admissible
Ⅲ.2.The Tribunal erred in allowing the Philippines' amendment to its Submission No.14 and finding it as formu—lated in the Final Submissions admissible
……
Chapter Four： Historic Rights （Subnussions No.1 and 2）
Chapter Five： The Status of China's Nansha Qundao and Zhongsha
Chapter Six： The Legality of China's Activities in the South China Sea（Submissions No.8to14）
Chapter Seven： Due Process and Evidence
General Conclusion： The Tribunal's Many Errors Deprive Its Awards of Validity and Threaten to Undermine the International Rule of Law
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
