AAPROJECT IN
CONTEMPORARYISS
UE
GROUP 9
Leader : Valentin, Adrian N.
Members :
Maranan, Kimberly B.
Martin, Prince Carl DR.
Padel, Mario Lei Gerald S.
Sagun, Hanah A.
Sanchez, QuerenDamarise S.
CONTENT OF PROJECT
I. Introduction
MANILA, Philippines – The Philippines' case against China over the West
Philippine Sea (South China Sea) boils down to 5 basic arguments. Philippine Foreign
Secretary Albert del Rosario outlined these claims on Tuesday, July 7, the first day of
arguments at The Hague.
For the oral hearings that run until July 13, we've listed these 5 arguments, quoted
verbatim from Del Rosario. Below each argument, we've added our own notes to explain
things in a nutshell. We've also included links to other stories for further reading and
reference. The Philippines' arguments revolve around the right to fish, as well as to
exploit other resources, in the West Philippine Sea.
This right is based on the so-called Constitution for the Oceans, the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Under UNCLOS, a coastal state has
the exclusive right to fish within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), an area 200 nautical
miles from the coastal state's baselines or edges.
IT will help public comprehension of the issues and stakes in our maritime dispute
with China if the government and its critics both disclose the facts of the dispute, and
desist from muddling the argument with deceptive claims. The government’s critics
contend that the country won sovereignty over the West Philippine Sea after its legal
victory at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in July 2016.
They say that the Duterte administration must do better in protecting its
sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea. President Duterte and his administration on the
other hand contend that while the arbitral ruling was important, the Philippines did not
win and does not have sovereignty over the waters.
All it has are sovereign rights over its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in a portion
of the South China Sea. The opposition stresses West Philippine Sea. The administration
mentions only the exclusive economic zone. President Duterte says that pressing too
insistently on the arbitral ruling could lead to conflict with China, a war which the country
can hardly fight at this point.
The critics say that Duterte is using the war scare to intimidate the people into
accepting his appeasement of China. There will be clarity and understanding of the
argument if the truth about the West Philippine Sea is fully brought out in the open.
They contended that three years after winning against China at the Permanent
Court of Arbitration (PCA), the Philippines is achieving the exact opposite of its legal
victory in the dispute. Mrs. Morales declared that Filipinos own the West Philippine Sea.
It did not appear in the books and maps we studied and used. In fact, the West
Philippine Sea only started to exist during the administration of President Benigno
Aquino 3rd. In September 2012, the Aquino government by administrative order
announced that it would start using the name to refer to waters west of the Philippines
as the “West Philippine Sea” in government maps, other forms of communication and
documents.
Administrative Order No. 29 says: “The maritime areas on the western side of the
Philippine archipelago are hereby named as the West Philippine Sea. These areas include
the Luzon Sea as well as the waters around, within, adjacent to the Kalayaan Island
Group and Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
The administrative order asserts the Philippine claim over its EEZ in the South
China Sea which conveys the Philippine government’s position that it has sovereign
rights under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) over
the West Philippine Sea area and “inherent power and right to designate its maritime
areas with appropriate nomenclature for purposes of the national mapping system.”
The arbitral ruling on the sea dispute nowhere mentions the West Philippine Sea,
so it is a delusion to say that we won sovereignty over the waters through the ruling. It is
also fact that UNCLOS does not confer on coastal states sovereignty over their exclusive
economic zones. It recognizes only sovereign rights to exploit and use resources in the
EEZ.
II. Key Problem
o Why China shows or disregarded the PCA decision for West Philippine Sea?
o Friendship can be over in this situation?
o Why China abuse different country in terms of territorial especially
Filipinos?
III. Alternatives
Enter into a convention with Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei
on the South China Sea. Declare that no geologic feature in the Spratly
Islands generates an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and that there are
only territorial seas from the geologic features that are above water at
high tide as ruled by the arbitral tribunal. This will leave China “isolated”
as the only country claiming EEZs from the Spratly Islands. Countries
that assert freedom of navigation and overflight in the SCS (FONOPS)
are expected to follow such a convention.
Send the Philippine Coast Guards’ new 44-meter multi role response
vessels that were donated by Japan to patrol the WPS. These vessels
are ideal for patrolling and catching poachers. Doing so will assert the
country’s sovereign rights in the maritime area.
Support private efforts to enforce the arbitral ruling. This refers to the
case filed by former Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario and former
Ombudsman ConchitaCarpio Morales against Chinese President Xi
Jinping before the International Criminal Court.
According to Justice Carpio refutes President Duterte’s
repeated claim that China might wage war on the Philippines if it
enforces its rights in the WPS. He urges the Duterte administration to
undertake the solutions, “part by part, brick by brick until the award is
finally enforced.
iv. Proposed Solution
The researchers propose a solution that the Philippines should share
the West Philippine Sea to china but we must have greater amount
than them because it is in the law and as we all know that we won
against them in the united nations for us and for them also to have
freedom and to lessen the problems that our country facing today and
to have good communication to one another and for our Filipino
fishers to threaten by the Chinese army correctly and rightly.
https://globalnation.inquirer.net/140358/philippines-arbitration-decision-
maritime-dispute-south-china-sea-arbitral-tribunal-unclos-itlos (article that shows
that we won against china in the United Nations)
v. Recommendations
we recommend that government take steps to establish or strengthen
current institutions that shall, undertake policy formulation, strategic
planning, policy coordination and periodic assessments of the policy
environment. Ensure that the implementation of plans and programs
are in accordance with policy guidelines. We recommend that
government develop a comprehensive, long term program for
international legal action on issues relating to the disputes. Such a
program may include but not be limited to the negotiation of
boundaries, filing of cases seeking arbitration or advisory opinion on
critical issues from competent bodies, while taking into consideration
the need to create favourable political, diplomatic and security
conditions for conflict resolution.
