The Rule of Law in The West Philippine Sea Dispute by Justice Antonio Carpio

THE RULE OF LAW IN
THE WEST PHILIPPINE

SEA DISPUTE
Justice Antonio T. Carpio
The
The Rule of Law in the West Philippine Sea Dispute
Dispute by Justice Antionio T. Carpio
Origins of Law of the Sea
In the 17th Century, naval superpowers claimed

ownership of oceans and seas they discovered, and
enforced their ownership through the naval cannon.
In 1609, Hugo Grotius argued in his classic Mare
Liberum that the oceans and seas belonged to all
mankind.
Grotius idea later became part of international law.
The foundation of law of the sea is that the oceans
and seas belong to all mankind.
mankind
The
China Returns to 17th

Century Era
In the 21st Century, China claims ownership of

almost the entire South China Sea by historical
right.
China is enforcing its claim through the naval
cannon.
China is bringing back the world to the 17th
Century.
The
The West Philippine

Sea Dispute
Under its 9-dashed line historical claim, China

asserts indisputable sovereignty
sovereignty to 80% of the
EEZ and 100% of the ECS of the Philippines in the
WPS.
The
The
Law Governing
the WPS Dispute
UNCLOS, which took effect in 1994, governs the

WPS dispute.
UNCLOS codified existing customary international
law and created novel maritime entitlements.
The
Law Governing
the WPS Dispute
UNCLOS provides for a compulsory dispute

settlement mechanism for the settlement of
maritime disputes.
UNCLOS governs only maritime disputes, not
territorial sovereignty disputes.
disputes
China, the Philippines, and all other claimant states
to the Spratlys have ratified UNCLOS, and are
bound to follow UNCLOS faithfully.
The
Maritime Entitlements
under UNCLOS
UNCLOS guarantees every coastal state, like the

Philippines, a 200-NM EEZ, plus a 150-NM ECS
where applicable.
Coastal and landlocked countries can fish in the
high seas, which is the area beyond the EEZ.
The area beyond the ECS, with all its resources,
belongs to all coastal and landlocked states; this is
called the AREA which is the common heritage
of mankind.
The
Violation of UNCLOS
Legal Entitlements
Chinas 9-dashed line claim violates:
1. The Philippines and other states legal entitlement
to a 200-nm EEZ and 150-nm
nm ECS.
2. The right of all states to fish in the high seas.
3. The right of all states to the seabed beyond the
ECS.
4. The prohibition against any state subjecting the
high seas to its sovereignty.
The
The
Chinas
s 9-Dashed
9
Line Claim
China anchors its 9-dashed

dashed line claim on historical
rights.
The 9-dashed lines first appeared in a 1947 Chinese
Government map; the map is of dubious
provenance; the dashes were originally 11, later
reduced to 9, and then increased to 10.
The dashes have no coordinates, and no
explanation whether they signify a claim only to
the islands within the enclosed area, or also a claim
to all the enclosed waters.
waters
The
James Shoal
The
From 11 to 9 to 10 Lines
The
Chinas
s 9-Dashed
9
Line Claim
Chinese legal scholars are divided as to what the 9

or 10 dashes mean.
China officially notified the world of the 9-dashed
9
line claim only in 2009.
China never enforced the 9-dashed
9
line claim from
1947 up to the present.
No country recognizes or acquiesces in to Chinas
China
9-dashed line claim.
The
Chinas
s 9-Dashed
9
Line Claim
The 9-dashed line claim is contrary to the

principles and rules of international law on claims
of historical rights to the sea.
The 9-dashed line claim is contrary to UNCLOS,
which does not recognize claims of historical
rights to the EEZ or ECS of another state.
There is nothing historical
historical or right about
Chinas 9-dashed line claim.
claim
The
Chinas
s Joint
Development Offer
China is offering to jointly develop areas in the
Philippines EEZ that overlap Chinas 9-dashed
line claim, while shelving the sovereignty issue.
However, China requires, as precondition to joint
development, that the Philippines first recognize
Chinas indisputable sovereignty
sovereignty under its 9dashed line claim.
This precondition is inconsistent with shelving the
sovereignty issue.
The
Chinas
s Joint
Development Offer
This precondition means the Philippines will give

up its maritime entitlements in the WPS that are
guaranteed under UNCLOS;
UNCLOS this also means that
the Philippines will give up its territorial
sovereignty over all the islands in the Kalayaan
Island Group.
Acceptance of Chinas precondition or joint
development is not allowed by the Philippine
Constitution.
No claimant state has agreed to Chinas joint
development offer.
The
Why the Philippines Filed

Arbitration Case
In November 2012, China informed the Philippines

that Chinese surveillance vessels would remain
permanently in Scarborough Shoal.
In short, China had invaded Philippine territory.
The Philippines had no capability to physically
retake Scarborough Shoal.
Shoal
The
Why the Philippines Filed

Arbitration Case
The only effective response the Philippines could

make was to bring China to arbitration on the
maritime aspect of the 9-dashed
9
line claim, which
is also the historical basis of Chinas territorial
claim to Scarborough Shoal, Mischief Reef and all
the other islands, reefs and rocks China claims in
the WPS.
The
1744 Murillo Map
The
1744 Murillo Map Showing

Panacot (Scarborough)
The
Ramifications of
Arbitration on UNCLOS
Chinas 9-dashed line cannot co-exist with

UNCLOS; upholding one means killing the other.
If allowed to stand, Chinas
China 9-dashed line claim
means UNCLOS ceases to be the law of the sea in
the South China Sea.. The very survival of
UNCLOS is at stake.
The
Ramifications of
Arbitration on Philippines
Even if Chinas 9-dashed

dashed line claim is invalidated,
China is not expected to vacate Mischief Reef and
Scarborough Shoal.
The Philippines must wage a worldwide campaign to
enlist world opinion in convincing the Chinese
people that the 9-dashed
dashed line is contrary to
international law, and that adherence to the Rule of
Law is the only peaceful, fair and lasting solution to
the WPS dispute.
The
Ramifications of
Arbitration on Philippines
Protecting the nations maritime zones is an intergenerational duty of all Filipinos, who must prepare
for a long struggle.
The Philippines must build and maintain a credible
self-defense force, particularly strengthening its navy,
to protect its maritime zones.
zones
No nation can remain independent, sovereign and
free for long without a credible self-defense force.
The
Rule of Law the only

Durable Solution
The use of force or threat of force to resolve the
West Philippine Dispute will only plant the seeds
for future conflicts.
The only fair, just and lasting solution to the West
Philippine Dispute is to follow the Rule of Law which means the faithful application of UNCLOS.
The
END
The

The Rule of Law in The West Philippine Sea Dispute by Justice Antonio Carpio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Rule of Law in The West Philippine Sea Dispute by Justice Antonio Carpio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE RULE OF LAW IN

THE WEST PHILIPPINE

Origins of Law of the Sea

In the 17th Century, naval superpowers claimed

China Returns to 17th

In the 21st Century, China claims ownership of

The West Philippine

Under its 9-dashed line historical claim, China

UNCLOS, which took effect in 1994, governs the

UNCLOS provides for a compulsory dispute

UNCLOS guarantees every coastal state, like the

China anchors its 9-dashed

Chinese legal scholars are divided as to what the 9

The 9-dashed line claim is contrary to the

This precondition means the Philippines will give

Why the Philippines Filed

In November 2012, China informed the Philippines

Why the Philippines Filed

The only effective response the Philippines could

1744 Murillo Map

1744 Murillo Map Showing

Chinas 9-dashed line cannot co-exist with

Even if Chinas 9-dashed

Rule of Law the only

You might also like