<P> On 29 October 2015, the PCA tribunal ruled that it had the power to hear the case . It agreed to take up seven of the 15 submissions made by Manila, in particular whether Scarborough Shoal and low - tide areas like Mischief Reef can be considered islands . It set aside seven more pointed claims mainly accusing Beijing of acting unlawfully to be considered at the next hearing on the case's merits . It also told Manila to narrow down the scope of its final request that the judges order that "China shall desist from further unlawful claims and activities ." </P> <P> The arbitral tribunal scheduled the hearing on merits of the case from 24 to 30 November 2015 . </P> <P> On 29 October 2015, the PCA published the award by the tribunal on Jurisdiction and Admissibility for the case . The tribunal found that it has jurisdiction to consider the following seven Philippines' Submissions . (Each number is the Philippines' Submissions number .) The tribunal reserved consideration of its jurisdiction to rule on Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 14 . </P> <Ul> <Li> No. 3 Philippines' position that Scarborough Shoal is a rock under Article 121 (3). </Li> <Li> No. 4 Philippines' position that Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are low tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to maritime zones . </Li> <Li> No. 6 Whether Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including Hughes Reef) are low - tide elevations "that do not generate any maritime entitlements of their own". </Li> <Li> No. 7 Whether Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef do or do not generate an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf . </Li> <Li> No. 10 "premised on (the) fact that China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from carrying out traditional fishing activities within the territorial sea of Scarborough Shoal ." </Li> <Li> No. 11 "China's failure to protect and preserve the marine environment at these two shoals (Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal)." </Li> <Li> No. 13 Philippines' protest against China's "purported law enforcement activities as violating the Convention on the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea and also violating UNCLOS". </Li> </Ul>

Arbitration concerning the south china sea philippines versus china