“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
Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay, Jr.It’s best that Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr. study carefully the intricacies of joint exploration with China so he can advise President Rodrigo Duterte to go slow about it.
Yasay, in his clarification about what he said in an interview with Agence France Presse last week, said, ““As the ruling will not address sovereignty and delimitation, it is possible that some time in the future, claimant countries might consider entering into arrangements such as joint exploration and utilization of resources in disputed areas that do not prejudice the parties’ claims and delimitation of boundaries in accordance with Unclos (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).”
Even if the Philippines gets a favorable ruling Tuesday on the issues they raised against China before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, there would still be a lot of complications about joint development of the disputed areas in the South China Sea.
The number one problem is China’s concept of “setting aside dispute and pursuing joint development.”
One of the resource materials on the issue in the website of the China’s Foreign Ministry, says “The concept of setting aside dispute and pursuing joint development has the following four elements: 1. The sovereignty of the territories concerned belongs to China. 2. When conditions are not ripe to bring about a thorough solution to territorial dispute, discussion on the issue of sovereignty may be postponed so that the dispute is set aside. To set aside dispute does not mean giving up sovereignty. It is just to leave the dispute aside for the time being. 3. The territories under dispute may be developed in a joint way. 4. The purpose of joint development is to enhance mutual understanding through cooperation and create conditions for the eventual resolution of territorial ownership.”
Duterte’s Jetski diplomacy. Photo from Mary Anne Tejada’s FB
Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte’s proposed solution to the South China territorial conflict would make a thrilling action-packed movie scene.
In a speech before travel executives at the MOA-SMX last Friday (and in all his rally speches) Duterte said, “I will ask the Navy to bring me to the nearest point in South China Sea that is tolerable to them and I will ride a jet ski. I’ll carry a flag and when I reach Spratlys, I will erect the Filipino flag. I will tell them, suntukan o barilan.”
Itu Aba. Photo by AMTI.CSIS.org
Is the water coming from the grounds of Itu Aba (Chinese name: Taiping; Philippine name: Ligaw) suitable for drinking?
The answer to this question is crucial in determining whether Itu Aba is an island or a rock.
The determination of Itu Aba’s feature- whether a rock or an island- is important in establishing the extent of the Philippine’s territory and coverage of its sovereignty.
Itu Aba, occupied by Taiwan, is the biggest feature in the Spratlys in South China Sea which is being claimed wholly by China and Taiwan and partly by Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS defines an island as “a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.”
Former Foreign Secretary Roberto R. RomuloBy Roberto R. Romulo
Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario’s dogged determination to pursue the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea dispute through the rule of law has proven his approach correct. The court ruled that the case was “properly constituted” under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that China’s “non-appearance” (i.e., refusal to participate) did not preclude the Court’s jurisdiction, and that the Philippines was within its rights in filing the case.
In the period before the ruling, there was a lot of pressure on the Secretary to dial down his stance and seek accommodation with China. While China has insisted on resolving the issue on a bilateral basis, the Secretary has maintained that this would leave us at a disadvantage and that in the instances where we tried to open dialogue, China has been unresponsive. That said, now that our hand has been strengthened, the argument in favour of the merits of seeking a peaceful, managed resolution has I think become even more persuasive. However, the responsibility of how to respond to this challenge will now have to be made by the incoming Administration. Unfortunately, the sounds currently coming from presidential aspirants or supporters of the aspirants reveal a misunderstanding of what the case is all about, claiming victory for our sovereign rights over the area. They have to get up to speed on the issue and determine the best way forward to protect the national interest rather than engaging in just nationalistic rhetoric.
Long before China built lighthouses in reefs they are occupying in the disputed Spratlys, the Philippine government under President Fidel Ramos had planned to build lighthouses in Reed Bank and two other reefs but inter-government wrangling over money stalled the project until it was overtaken by events.
Last Tuesday, China announced its plan to construct lighthouses in two reefs in Spratlys which it calls Nansha Islands. Groundbreaking ceremony for the construcion of Lighthouses in Huayang Reef and Chigua Reef. Xinhua photo.
A news item in Xinhua, a Chinese news agency, China to Build Large Lighthouses in South China Sea said, “China’s Ministry of Transport (MOT) on Tuesday hosted a groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of two lighthouses on Huayang Reef and Chigua Reef of China’s Nansha Islands.
Vice President Jejomar BinayWhile in Jakarta last week representing President Aquino in the 60th anniversary of the Asia-Africa Conference, Vice President Jejomar Binay articulated what could be a foreign policy shift for the country if he succeeds in his ambition to become president.
“China has all the capital and we have the property so why don’t we try and develop that property as a joint venture?”he said.
Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. CarpioThis is not actually new. Binay disclosed this in an interview with Manila Times’ Efren Danao last year.
Amid concerns expressed by President Aquino and Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario over massive reclamations being done by China around their occupied reefs in the disputed Spratlys in South China Sea, Binay further said: “Personally, my feeling is we will continue to insist (on) our sovereignty over those properties but at the same time we hope we can create a situation where we can improve bilateral relations with China.”
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who has been conducting a series of lectures on the South China Sea dispute, said in his lecture last April 27 with judges and justices that joint development of the Spratlys with China is not possible without violating the Constitution.
Statement of the Prof. Harry L. Roque Jr., chair of the Center for International Law (Centerlaw), an NGO dedicated to the promotion of binding international legal norms in the Philippines and Asia:
Atty. Harry Roque“We take exception to the veiled threat in the statement made yesterday by Secretary Leila De Lima that the Vera Files special report on a recent Note Verbale given by the Philippines to Malaysia over the Spratlys islands concerned a confidential matter that should have been kept as it is.
“In the first place, our Justice Secretary should be first to know that such a threat is in the nature of prior restraint with a chilling effect on speech, as held by the Supreme Court in the case filed by the late former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez against a predecessor of hers at the DOJ, the late Raul Gonzales.
“A mere press statement of a threat of prosecution coming from a government functionary, according to this 2008 Supreme Court decision, is unconstitutional precisely for that reason.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima.Now that the Department of Foreign Affairs’ willingness to downgrade the country’s claim to Sabah to strengthen its case against China before the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal has been exposed, it is resorting to the classic diversionary tactic- questioning the journalists’ motives in writing the report.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima now comes to the aid of the DFA.
De Lima has been quoted in several reports as having said that VERA Files’ March 30 story “PH offers Sabah to win Malaysia’s support for UN case vs China” is a “misinterpretation.”
