The Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled today that China’s all-encompassing nine-dash line is not valid.
(To read the 501-page Award, please click to this site: https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf)
“The Tribunal found that China’s claim to historic rights to resources was incompatible with the detailed allocation of rights and maritime zones in the Convention and concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished by the entry into force of the Convention to the extent they were incompatible with the Convention’s system of maritime zones,” the decision said.
The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources, in excess of the rights provided for by the Convention, within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line
China’s nine-dash line map covers almost 80 percent of vast South China Sea including maritime zones of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.
The Tribunal also said the presence of official personnel in high-tide features in the Spratly Islands do not change their legal status as “rocks” that do not generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
China has expanded rocks they are occupying in the disputed Spratlys into artificial islands and built military structures including an airfield.
The ruling also applies to the Philippines’ Pag-asa island also known as Thitu island.
The Arbitral Tribunal also said China violated the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea by obstructing Philippine vessels going to Scarborough Shoal in April and May 2012 and creating a situation that endangered the ships and personnel.
The Court scored China for causing harm to the coral environment by its recent large scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands.
Please click here: http://verafiles.org/ph-wins-u-n-arbitral-court-invalidates-chinas-9-dash-line/ for the full story.
Masarap tulog ko kagabi kahit naaalala ko pag mumukha ni Yasay.
Nagalabas siya ng pahayag kahapon at kapuna-puna na maraming netizens ang “dismayado” sa mga pahayag niya.
May “South China Sea” pa rin kasi kahit na dapat ay “West Philippine See” kung saan ang 200nm EEZ ay guaranteed ng UNCLOS sa lahat State na may Coastal area.
Gusto ko sipain mukha niya. Huwag na dun sa itlog, kasi wala naman siya nun.
Let’s give credit where credit it due. This is clearly a legal victory that resulted from the efforts of the Aquino Administration. Salamat po PNOY!!
Let’s give credit where credit is due. This is clearly a legal victory that resulted from the efforts of the Aquino Administration. Salamat po PNOY!!
agree with jcj. one can say much about pnoy but this one is clearly positive and truly filipino. one can just wait for one who swore of loving the philippines what will he do next. probably not much to avoid conflict.
2012 pa lang sinabi ko ng fake yung mapa ng tsina 🙂
http://interaksyon.com/article/30466/manuel-buencamino-the-truth-behind-chinas-nine-dash-map
Agreed ako sa inyong lahat na nauna sa aking mag-komento.
Nun daw unang panahon ay hindi South China Seas ang tawag dyan kundi South Seas lang. Sino ba ang punyemas na nagpalit ng name ng dagat?
Maaring matagal pa natin maramdaman benepisyo ng decision ng PCA. Pero as soon as bigyan na ng go signal ng gobyerno, pwede nang ituloy ng Philex Exploration ang matagal ng bitin na project sa Reed/Recto Bank. It could change our lives forever.
The award (decision) itself, not the press release, is available from a link at the Raissa Robles blog.
The award is 501 pages long. Mahaba man daw ang procession, sa simbahan din ang bagsak. The only material part is the dispositive portion, called “Dispositif” in international law decisions. It starts at page 471, 493 on your Adobe counter. There is a variance because some pages were intentionally left blank (separator kung baga), and there is the long glossary section.
The dispositif, itself, has a pasakalye – talking about the PCA’s jurisdiction. So the dispositive part within the dispositif starts at page 473 (bottom of page), page 495 on your Adobe counter. The section is B, merits.
Before I post on the award, and my ruminations on it (mayroon panalo, at may talo), side-trip muna tayo sa trivia.
On page 23 and 24 (45 and 46 on your Adobe Reader counter), we find the people who embarked on a junket. Sorry. Pinoy Officials who graced the hearing with their attendance.
Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert F. del Rosario
Mrs. Gretchen V. del Rosario
Secretary Ronaldo M. Llamas
Representative Rodolfo G. Biazon
Justice Francis H. Jardeleza
Justice Antonio T. Carpio
Ambassador Jaime Victor B. Ledda
Mrs. Veredigna M. Ledda
Ambassador Enrique A. Manalo
Ambassador Victoria S. Bataclan
Ambassador Cecilia B. Rebong
Ambassador Melita S. Sta. Maria-Thomeczek
Ambassador Joselito A. Jimeno
Ambassador Carlos C. Salinas
Mrs. Isabelita T. Salinas
Deputy Executive Secretary Menardo I. Guevarra
Deputy Executive Secretary Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr.
Undersecretary Emmanuel T. Bautista
Undersecretary Abigail D. F. Valte
Consul General Henry S. Bensurto, Jr.
Minister Igor G. Bailen
Minister and Consul General Dinno M. Oblena
Director Ana Marie L. Hernando
Second Secretary and Consul Zoilo A. Velasco
Third Secretary and Vice Consul Ma. Theresa M. Alders
Third Secretary and Vice Consul Oliver C. Delfin
Attorney Josel N. Mostajo
Attorney Maximo Paulino T. Sison III
Attorney Ma. Cristina T. Navarro
Associate Solicitor Elvira Joselle R. Castro
Attorney Margaret Faye G. Tañgan
Associate Solicitor Maria Graciela D. Base
Associate Solicitor Melbourne D. Pana
Ms. Ma. Rommin M. Diaz
Mr. Rene Fajardo
May mga es-mi (Mrs.) ng Ambassador, and of course, Mr. DVD, Ronald Llamas was there.
There is a Bensurto fellow there. He is a consul in LA. There are ambassadors of Germany, Switzerland, and Spain.
The people from the PCA (judges as well as court personnel), and the reps of the seven observer countries, totaled 49.
Barangay Pilipinas had 49 as well. Counting the expert witnesses, ups the total to 54.
There is no declaration that Scarborough Shoal is within our exclusive economic zone. The declaration in the dispositif regarding Scarborough Shoal is as follows:
Page 475, item 11 (497 on the Adobe counter).
The other declarations on Scarborough Shoal are the following:
Page 473 (bottom), 495 on the Adobe counter.
Page 474, 496 on the Adobe counter.
Page 476, 498 on the Adobe counter.
The parts that belong to the Philippine EEZ, or part of its sovereignty (those are two different concepts) are in reference to Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal (Ayungin), and Reed Bank.
Last post above is from Page 474, 496 on the Adobe counter.
On post 13 above, with regard to the sentence
Article 94 is in Part VII of the UNCLOS, titled HIGH SEAS.
The first section, Artcile 86, says:
What? Does it mean what I think it means?
~Sen. Antonio Trillanes III said, “The landmark decision of the Arbitral Tribunal is a historic victory for our Country. Equally important is that, based on early reports, it is definitive, categorical and expectedly upheld the provisions of UNCLOS which could help the Duterte Administration in pursuing the next course of action. Lastly, the favorable decision is a vindication of the foreign policy direction of the Aquino Administration.”~
It is a supreme insult to the people who actually worked on the Hague case vs China when you include the hypocrite Trillanes and his quote on the ruling.
When the Philippine Government was in the process of filing the Hague case, PNoy assembled all his cabinet me3mbers, and then invited all the senators, the Speaker of the House and two former Presidents – Ramos and Estrada. In the meeting, PNoy then explained what they were about to do (file the Hague case against China in firm believe and resolve that what the Philippines was doing was right – defending what was rightfully ours) and then he put it to a vote. “Who was in favor of filing the case?”
Only one person in this meeting voted against filing of the Hague case- Trillanes.
@17:
Proof?
sax, did you find it there where the PCA also declared Itu Aba as a “rock” not an island capable of sustaining life as Taiwan long claimed it to be, going as far as flying reporters to the island as late as 2 weeks ago?
“…capable of human habitation or economic life of its own”, is the more complete legal description of an “island”
Carpio has said in a lecture early this year that if the tribunal declares Itu Aba as a “rock” they will then declare that Palawan has a full 200 nautical mile Economic Exclusive Zone facing the West Philippine Sea.
Taiwan’s President has sent a frigate and other vessels to resupply the “island” in her anger and now appears to be taking the same position as her enemy – the mainland.
I have bookmarked this blog entry and am following this specific issue closely:
http://goo.gl/0t5oVY
If there are still any questions regarding the Hague decision, the man on the jet ski will resolve it
#17, Lourdes,your confuse the discussion on Scarborough shoal stand off with filing of the case before the U.N.
The discussion where Trillanes participated in was in June 2012, when he did backchanelling to break the Scarborough Shoal stand off. The question was whether to internationalize the issue by bringing it up to the ASEAN ministerial meeting. (http://www.ellentordesillas.com/2016/05/20/pnoy-del-rosario-responsible-for-ph-losing-control-of-scarborough-shoal/)
The discussion on whether to file the case came much later. Trillanes was no longer involved in the discussions about China. The Philippines filed the case in January 2013.
I don’t know who your source is about “PNoy assembled all his cabinet me3mbers, and then invited all the senators, the Speaker of the House and two former Presidents – Ramos and Estrada.” There was no such meeting. Aquino NEVER, NEVER held a meeting with all the cabinet members plus members of Congress and former presidents. That’s not Aquino’s style.
In that June 2012 meeting where the Sen. Enrile was present, they also voted on whether to send back the Coast Guard ships to Scarborough Shoal. That’s also where the only dissenter was Trillanes.
So decided that we send back the Coast Guard ships.
The Americans learned about it. They told then Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin not to do that because they don’t want any miscalculations which coud result in an armed conflict. So,we never sent back our ships to Scarborough shoal.
Yan ang nangyari.
Please make sure that you have the right information.
# 19
Will reply in the latest thread (article by Bagares), because our exchange is related to the article.
# 19 Tongue, discussion on Itu Aba is from page 224 to 254.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concludes that Itu Aba, Thitu, West York, Spratly Island,
South West Cay and North East Cay are not capable of sustaining an economic
life of their own within the meaning of Article 121(3). The Tribunal has also considered, and reaches the same conclusion with respect to, the other, less significant high-tide features in the Spratly Islands, which are even less capable of sustaining economic life, but does not consider it necessary to list them individually.
The Tribunal having concluded that none of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands is
capable of sustaining human habitation or an economic life of their own, the effect of
Article 121(3) is that such features shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
>#17, Lourdes,your confuse the discussion on Scarborough shoal stand off with filing of the case before the U.N.
The discussion where Trillanes participated in was in June 2012, when he did backchanelling to break the Scarborough Shoal stand off. The question was whether to internationalize the issue by bringing it up to the ASEAN ministerial meeting. (http://www.ellentordesillas.com/2016/05/20/pnoy-del-rosario-responsible-for-ph-losing-control-of-scarborough-shoal/)
The discussion on whether to file the case came much later. Trillanes was no longer involved in the discussions about China. The Philippines filed the case in January 2013.
I don’t know who your source is about “PNoy assembled all his cabinet me3mbers, and then invited all the senators, the Speaker of the House and two former Presidents – Ramos and Estrada.” There was no such meeting. Aquino NEVER, NEVER held a meeting with all the cabinet members plus members of Congress and former presidents. That’s not Aquino’s style.<
Unless you were there and obviously you were not as your only evidence is that it is not President Aquino's style), this meeting and a vote whether to file or not was confirmed by FVR in this news article http://interaksyon.com/article/130575/fvr-inclined-to-accept-offer-to-be-special-envoy-to-china
Mentioning Trillanes in the same sentence as praising the ruling of the Hague tribunal will always be an insult to the men and women who worked hard for this win. He did nothing but vote against the filing.
Additional confirmation that Trillanes voted against filing the Hague case (and he was the only one who dissented) can be referenced here
http://opinion.inquirer.net/95871/how-sweet-it-is-2
Trillanes does not deserve any airtime at all by anyone when it concerns the Hague ruling. As a matter of fact, he should be called out (traitor, opportunist, Communist China sympathizer and a fifth column comes to mind) for voting against the Hague case filing.
The proper way would be to recognize President Aquino, Foreign Secretary Albert Del rosario, Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, Solicitor General Florin Hibay, Supreme Court Justice Francis Hardeleza, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and Consul General Henry Bensurto, Jr. for their integral contributions in the filing the Hague case and the praise them for the subsequent victory over Communist China’s excessive and illegal claims over the South China Sea.
#28
Trillanes has sent Solita Monsod a letter denying her account of the background on artbitration. He was not part of that meeting. He disengaged sometime in August 2012. The decision to file was about October or last months of 2012.
I don’t know if Monsod will give space to Trillanes letter to her.