International low

In my last column, I condemned hard China’s bullying of us in the West Philippine Sea (WPS). However, I cannot suffer lightly the fact that many comments on the issue verge on the preposterous.

This is because many are abysmally ignorant of the basic tenets of international law. Indeed, even some supposedly learned commentators seem unable to differentiate between international and municipal law, or the laws that govern the internal workings of a country’s juridical system.

In the case of municipal laws, for instance, in the Philippines, when an individual violates the law the State has coercive powers to either punish the violator (in cases of criminal acts) or correct a breach thereof (in civil cases). To cite simple examples: If a person defames someone in print, he may be criminally indicted for libel and, if tried and found guilty, the police would imprison him.

If he refuses to face the courts, the police will look for him and arrest him. He may also be sued for civil damages, and if found liable, a judgment for payment of money will be imposed upon him.

If he refuses to pay, a court officer called a Sheriff (no, not the one riding a horse with a star-shaped badge, cowboy hat and a six-shooter on his hip, but a regular-looking guy in semi-formal attire actually) will levy his bank accounts, properties and turn them over to the winning party.

In international law, we are not dealing with citizens of a country, but with sovereign countries. The “laws” being invoked are not those passed by a legislature and immediately enforceable, but merely a sort of code of conduct that evolved through decades or even centuries of observance and actual usage. Some are already sanctified through thousands of years of use, i.e., the inviolability of ambassadors and their residences, the immunity of foreign sovereigns from suit. Others are new and still in the process of gaining acceptance.

The problem with international law is that there is no one body or agency that has the power to enforce the same. This is because enforcement relies greatly on the consent and cooperation of the community of nations. Well, there is the United Nations (UN), you say, but if I had a dollar for every time a member country ignored a UN resolution, I’d have enough money for a yearly trip to New York City. Rich and powerful countries are often always the transgressors, but that is a topic for another day.

So, what to do with China’s aggressive actions in the WPS which our country feels to be in violation of the UNCLOS arbitral tribunal ruling? The trouble with that is that, from the get-go, China has refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the said tribunal and has boycotted its proceedings.

This limits our remedies to mainly diplomatic pressure, whereby we can continually call China to the carpet with the aid of our allies who have joined cause with us in the WPS issue. Regarding this, a resort to regional organizations such as ASEAN, or even the UN General Assembly and/or Security Council, may exert diplomatic suasion on China, although it is a permanent member of the Security Council that has veto power. Camote…

Bilateral negotiations may also be tried, using as a starting point the said arbitral ruling, although this tack has had only limited success in the past. The Philippines could also leverage the ruling to justify a proportional response to the Chinese aggressions, although the disproportional size of our military vis-à-vis theirs is a real obstacle.

So, to those war freaks out there, chill lang kayo. As Don Corleone once wisely said, “War is bad for business.” Unfortunately, as the enforcement of our claims will rely on a delicate balancing act factoring in diplomatic relations, the economic interests of our allies (especially in their trade with China), strategic motives and other global power dynamics, there is no quick fix, no fast high. Only international low.