Détente must prevail
According to the tribunal’s ruling, based on UNCLOS provisions, the Spratly Islands, for instance, are not islands in the legal sense but rather rocks or low-tide elevations.
Text size
Share
Daily TribuneAccording to the tribunal’s ruling, based on UNCLOS provisions, the Spratly Islands, for instance, are not islands in the legal sense but rather rocks or low-tide elevations.
Share
Armed Forces of the Philippines spokesperson, Colonel Medel Aguilar, recently issued a statement that caused a stir among Chinese officials when he said their claim of "indisputable sovereignty" over the West Philippine Sea is "disputable."
China, which clings to its historical claim to the expanse of disputed waters, then lets off its litany of arguments backing its discredited assertions.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration award indicated China's claims of historic rights within its nine-dash line, which Beijing uses to demarcate its claims in the South China Sea, were without legal basis.
It also concluded that Beijing's activities within the Philippines' 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, such as fishing and constructing artificial islands, infringed on the country's sovereign rights.
In response, China stressed that the arbitration award was "illegal, null and void."
The polemic was anchored on "the arbitration initiated by the Philippines directly concerns the issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation," which China said were not subject to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS.
"In 2006, according to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China excluded issues relating to sea boundary delimitations from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal."
It added that by unilaterally initiating the South China Sea arbitration, the Philippines contravened the stipulations of UNCLOS.
Beijing also accused the arbitral tribunal of issuing a ruling that "violated the principle of state consent, exercised its jurisdiction ultra vires, and rendered an award in disregard of the law."
The Philippines' arbitration happened, however, as its petition focused on the legal status of disputed maritime features rather than on a determination of ownership or sovereignty.
Experts in international law said that on these terms, the Philippines obtained a sweeping victory, with the panel finding unanimously in its favor on almost all 15 submissions.
Contrary to the arguments of the mainland, China has illegally occupied the maritime features.
According to the tribunal's ruling, which was based on UNCLOS provisions, the Spratly Islands, for instance, are not islands in the legal sense but rather rocks or low-tide elevations.
The elevations include Mischief Reef, which China has occupied since 1995 and is one of seven features that Beijing had reclaimed when the arbitration case was lodged in 2013.
On Mischief Reef now stands a military-grade runway and port facilities. The ruling is unambiguous that it falls within the Philippine EEZ.
Geopolitical experts said Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries not parties to the arbitration had their EEZ rights in the South China Sea bolstered by the ruling.
Indonesia and Malaysia have also experienced encroachment by Chinese fishing and maritime law enforcement vessels in areas included in their claimed territories, which both countries consider their traditional fishing grounds.
China maintained, however, that its claim was developed and established "throughout the long course of history and is consistent with international law, including the United Nations Charter."
While the contending positions appear to conflict regarding the arbitration award that is internationally accepted, except by China, the common denominator remains UNCLOS, to which Beijing adheres.
Unlike other geopolitical conflicts, the WPS friction has an inclination for resolution among the disputing sides, including China.
A good starting point is the completion of the Code of Conduct, which has been delayed for ages.
With a binding agreement in place, China's resentment of intrusions by external forces would be adequately addressed.
Contending parties, however, should allow for a "give and take" to seal the deal.
