1180. [...] China has been free to represent itself in these proceedings in the manner it considered most appropriate, including by refraining from any formal appearance, as it has in fact done. The decision of how best to represent China’s position is a matter for China, not the Tribunal. [...]
もっとも、国際司法裁判所の場合と同様、UNCLOS仲裁廷の場合にも、一方当事国が欠席の場合には、仲裁廷は「請求が事実及び法において十分な根拠を有すること'the claim is well founded in fact and law'」が求められます（付属書VII第9条）。こうした規定の存在から、従来、国際裁判において一方当事国が欠席した場合には、証明責任の分配規則が何らかの形で「事実上」あるいは「実際上」影響を受けるといった見方がなされることもありました。
131. With respect to the duty to satisfy itself that the Philippines’ claims are well founded in fact and law, the Tribunal notes that Article 9 of Annex VII does not operate to change the burden of proof or to raise or lower the standard of proof normally expected of a party to make out its claims or defences. [...]
991. The Tribunal cannot make a definitive finding that China has prepared an environmental impact assessment, but nor can it definitely find that it has failed to do so in light of the repeated assertions by Chinese officials and scientists that China has undertaken thorough studies. Such a finding, however, is not necessary in order to find a breach of Article 206. To fulfil the obligations of Article 206, a State must not only prepare an EIA but also must communicate it. The Tribunal directly asked China for a copy of any EIA it had prepared; China did not provide one. While acknowledging that China is not participating in the arbitration, China has nevertheless found occasions and means to communicate statements by its own officials, or by others writing in line with China’s interests. Therefore had it wished to draw attention to the existence and content of an EIA, the Tribunal has no doubt it could have done so. [...] Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that China has not fulfilled its duties under Article 206 of the Convention.