AMBASSADORS’ CORNER

Arbitral award

I will now dwell on the arbitral award, given its importance to present and future generations of Filipinos.

It may be recalled that the Philippines filed the case against China to assert sovereign equality and to resolve the issue of whether the Philippines has sovereign rights to a 200- mile exclusive economic zone ( EEZ)/ continental shelf in the South China Sea.

The Philippines was careful to exclude any issue of territorial sovereignty.

The Hague tribunal ruled that China has no EEZ/continental shelf overlapping with the Philippines, either on the basis of the nine-dash line or the Spratly islands.

Nine- dash line

The tribunal ruled that China’s claim to historic rights to living and nonliving resources within the nine-dash line are contrary to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

According to the tribunal, the text of the convention is clear in according sovereign rights to the living and non-living resources of the EEZ to the coastal State alone. The provisions of the convention concerning the continental shelf are even more explicit that rights to the living and non-living resources pertain to the coastal State

The tribunal stated that the convention does not preserve or protect any historic rights in the EEZ/ continental shelf that exceed the limits provided by the convention, i.e., 200 miles from the baseline.

The context of the convention is that, upon China’s accession, any historic rights were superseded by the limits of the maritime zones as stated above.

In any event, China did not have any historic rights to speak of because, before the convention entered into force, all of the South China Sea formed part of the high seas.

Finally, the tribunal held that China could not have acquired any rights after the adoption of the convention because the extent of the rights asserted within the “nine-dash line” only became clear with China’s notes verbales of May 2009. Since that date, China’s claims have been clearly objected to by other States.

Spratly (Nansha) Islands

Neither can China claim an EEZ/ continental shelf on the basis of the Spratly islands.

All of the high tide features there are legally rocks, by virtue of Article 121 (3) of the convention, and have no EEZ/continental shelf since they cannot sustain human habitation or economic life

Article 121 ( 3) supports the concept of the EEZ to extend the jurisdiction of States over the waters adjacent to their coasts and to preserve the resources of those

- tion of the coastal state. The EEZ is not meant to award a windfall to a potentially distant state.

Thus, a delegate to the Unclos negotiations pointed out:

“Tiny and barren islands, looked upon in the past as mere obstacles to navigation, should not miraculously become the golden keys to vast maritime zones.”

The tribunal further held that China could not enclose the Spratly Islands as a single unit within a system of archipelagic baselines.

The use of archipelagic baselines is limited to archipelagic states and

of an archipelagic state.

The tribunal noted that even the Philippines cannot declare archipelagic baselines in the Kalayaan Island Group because the archipelagic baselines should include the main islands and meet the requirements of ratio of water to land of 9:1.

Neither can China draw straight baselines because the Spratly Islands are not within the vicinity of China’s mainland.

Conclusion

The tribunal noted that accession to

- ment to bring incompatible claims

They worry about the destruction of

stocks and the loss of biodiversity, and they demand that our sovereign rights to our sources of food and energy be protected.

The Duterte administration is now seeking to enforce the arbitral award through cooperative efforts, such as discussing joint exploration and exploitation of gas and oil, but on the basis of sovereign rights under Unclos.

“A sea of peace, stability and prosperity” is our work in progress, with Asean and our dialogue partners.