These are the questions which each group will answer:

(1) What does the arbitral award say about the concerns of the cluster or for the country in
general (for the ex-prresidents)? (If any)

2. What are the implications of the arbitral award to our national territory? Why is that
important to your cluster?

Basis to pursue litilation and if to pursue litigation then to enforce the arbitral award the naval
gobal powers will enforce the conduct of navigation operations (J. Carpio) but on oil and gas
fileds it is the countries ability to enforce but may appeal in international tribunal for help such
as the US embassy (J Carpio) such as the case of Nicaruagua v USA. According to (Senator
Pone Enrile), need for a stonger air force.
The Award is final and binding. Theres no right of appeal and the decision cannot be
annulled by the UN. To date, the Philippines has been calm and measured in its response. It
has the high moral ground in having taken the dispute to an agreed arbitration process
before respected international jurists. Chinas short-term position is that it will not accept the
decision but remains open to negotiations.( DonaldRothwel,AfindingChinacantignore:the
SouthChinaSeaarbitration,2016july)
acting illegally under international law and the coastal states would be entitled to take legal or
other actions to defend their rights and jurisdictions. China must therefore immediately scale
back and halt its maritime assertion and coercion activities against its neighbours, such as
blocking and threatening non-Chinese vessels engaged in resource exploration and
exploitation, and protecting Chinese fishing in other states waters. (Philippine v China
Verdict by Batongbacal, 2016 july)
Source: (http://www.rappler.com/nation/136779-ruling-philippines-china-south-china-seaenforcement-antonio-carpio)

3. What are your cluster recommendations on how to move forward? Among others:
(a) Recommend whether we should abandon the arbitral ruling so we can improve our
relations with China.
No,

1. China violated ruled of law for international waters and to concede to their claims
implies the international rules promulgated for open seas will have been for naught
and the rule of canons will once again come to affect
2. Chiina has damaged the ecosystem and will continue to pose a significant against
marine environment of the South China Sea (Alan Boyle, environmentalist specialist
testimony under the UNCLOS during the hearing). To abandon then the ruling in
order to improve chinas relation with the country is both condoning the injustice of
Chinas actions and a significant opportunity lost of raising a red flag on Chinas
unilateral, intimidation driven actions (Del Rosario, Foreign Affairs Secretary).
(b) Recommend whether joint development of resources is legally, politically, and practically
possible.
(c) Recommend also whether or not the Philippines should accept the Chinese offer to allow
our fishermen to fish in Panatag Shoal with permission from the Chinese.
(d) Finally, recommend whether joint cooperation to protect the marine environment of the
South China Sea is legally, practically and politically possible.

1. (b) (c) (d)

According to Justice Carpio PROTECTINGTHENATIONSMARINEWEALTHINTHE
WESTPHILIPPINESEA(2014)

China has been dangling to the Philippines and other claimant states
its offer for joint development of the disputed areas while shelving the
sovereignty issues, an
idea suggested by the late Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping.
There are at least three problems to this offer. First, China wants to
jointly develop the EEZ of the
Philippines but refuses to jointly develop Chinas own EEZ. In
effect, China is saying to the Philippines, what is exclusively Chinas
economic zone is Chinas alone, but what is exclusively the Philippines
economic zone belongs to both China and the Philippines, and if the
Philippines does not agree, Chinas warships will be there to prevent
the Philippines from exploiting its exclusive economic zone.
Second, as explained by Chinese officials and scholars, Chinas offer of
joint development is subject to the precondition that participating
coastal states must
first expressly recognize Chinas indisputable sovereignty under its 9dashed line claim. This precondition effectively means that once a
state agrees to joint development, it must not only vacate any island it
possesses in the Spratlys and turn over the same to China, it must also
renounce any maritime claim within the 9dashed line area. This precondition demanded by China is obviously
inconsistent with its offer to shelve the sovereignty issue. Third, if the

Philippines agrees to Chinas joint development offer, the Philippines

will in effect give up its exclusive sovereign rights to exploit all the
living and non-living resources in its own EEZ. The Philippines will also
give up its exclusive right to exploit the mineral
resources in its own ECS. The bottom line is that Chinas joint
development offer will negate the maritime entitlements of the
Philippines under UNCLOS. This is constitutionally impermissible
because our 1987 Constitution mandates the State to protect the
nations marine wealth in its xxx exclusive economic zone, and reserve
its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. Any joint
development with China constitutes a culpable violation of
the Constitution.
(d) The smaller littoral states of the SCS naturally gain from the legal
reinforcement of their EEZ and continental shelf entitlements
extending from their mainland coasts. If China insists on enforcing its
now-illegitimate historic rights claims in these EEZ and continental
shelf areas, it would clearly be acting illegally under international
law and the coastal states would be entitled to take legal or other
actions to defend their rights and jurisdictions. China must
therefore immediately scale back and halt its maritime assertion and
coercion activities against its neighbours, such as blocking and
threatening non-Chinese vessels engaged in resource exploration and
exploitation, and protecting Chinese fishing in other states waters.
Any joint venture on the claims china uses that was refuted by the UN
are as Dr. Tran Truong Tuy, Director of the Centre for South China Sea
Studies at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, interprets the Chinese
offer as saying: What is mine is mine, what is yours is mine and we
are willing to share.