evidence: In addition, noting that "traditional fishing rights might exist even within the territorial waters of another State", the Tribunal also found jurisdiction to consider matters raised by the Philippines’ Submission 10 "to the extent that the claimed rights and alleged interference occurred within the territorial sea of Scarborough Shoal".70 In this connection the Tribunal is of the view that for the consideration of this matter, it is irrelevant whether Scarborough Shoal is a rock or island pursuant to article 121. It also noted that articles 297 and 298 have no application in the territorial sea. Similarly, the Tribunal found no impediment for it to consider matters raised by Submission 11 (on matters of the protection and preservation of the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal and the application of articles 192 and 194 of UNCLOS)71 and Submission 13 (concerning operation of China’s law enforcement activities in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal and the application of articles 21, 24, and 94 of UNCLOS "to the extent that the claimed rights and alleged interference occurred within the territorial sea of Scarborough Shoal".72