Philippines vs. China in the South China Sea - MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about thePhilippines vs. China in the South China Sea. Answer: The opening of the Philippines case against China related with claims in the disputed South China Sea was heard by a five person panel of judges at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Philippines relies on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and hopes to convince the tribunal that jurisdiction is present for the court to hear the dispute and intervene. Philippines believe that this issue is of utmost significance for the country, the region and for the world. Therefore, it is also of the opinion that this case is of utmost importance for the integrity of the UNCLOS and the very fabric of legal order in the sea (Forbes and Henley, 2012). In this sense, it can be said that it is not only the claim made by Philippines that is at stake but it is the international law or more particularly the UNCLOS. The reason behind this dispute is that China lays a claim to the goal of the South China Sea. China's claim is based on the ancient Chinese maps. In these maps, it has been shown that Chinese activity was taking place in the islands even centuries ago (Emmers, 2007). Other countries that are a part of the dispute as their own basis for their claims but none of these countries claims as much area as is claimed by China except Taiwan. However, in the present case, the claim made by Philippines is based on geography and also on the legal principle of Res nullius. According to this principle, it has been mentioned that if an object is ownerless, it is free to be owned (Bautista, 2011). After the World War II, Japan, with control these islands had relinquished its control, and without any particular beneficiary, making them free for annexation. Moreover, in case of geography all the islands that are claimed by Philippines fall within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Philippines within 200 nautical miles. The relations between Philippines and China started to become more hostile in the South China Sea after the filing of this case in 2013. For example, the Navy of Philippines was locked in a standoff with the maritime surveillance ships of China in 2013 near the disputed Scarborough Shoal. After this incident, there have been other standoffs and incidents that have taken place between the two nations. For example, the joint military drills that were held by Philippines along with the United States and Japan near this disputed territory had also worsened the relations between the two countries. Regarding this dispute, it has been claimed by Philippines that the non-dotted line claim that has been made by China is not valid. The reason given by Philippines is that such a claim violates the provisions of UNCLOS agreement regarding the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and territorial seas. Moreover, Philippines also claims that the reason that most of the features in the South China Sea like the Spartly Islands are not capable of sustaining life, they cannot be provided their own continental shelf as defined by the UNCLOS. On the other hand, China had refused to take part in the arbitration. It claims that it has a number of treaties with the Philippines in which it has been clearly stated that the parties will use bilateral negotiations for the purpose of resolving border disputes present between them. At the same time, China had also accused Philippines that it had violated the voluntary Declaration on Conduct of Parties in South China Sea. This declaration was made between ASEAN and China in 2002. It also stipulates that bilateral negotiations will be used by the parties for the purpose of resolving any border or other disputes that may be present between them. In this regard, a position paper was also issued by China in 2014. It was argued in this paper that the South China Sea dispute cannot be resolved by arbitration (Bautista, 2009). The reason was that ultimately it was a matter related with sovereignty and not with the exploitation of rights. However, the refusal of China will not prevent the Permanent Court of Arbitration tribunal to proceed with this case (Emmers, 2007). It also needs to be mentioned that both Philippines and China have expressed their concerns regarding subjecting their territorial claims to the International Court of Justice as it had the authority to actually adjudicate on the claims related with sovereignty. Therefore, in short, it can be said that the international law cannot be used as a mechanism to directly resolve the disputes related with sovereignty. Similarly, even if Philippines wins the question related with jurisdiction, still there will be a lengthy round of hearings and clarifications before the tribunal can pronounce a final verdict. It is most likely that the Tribunal will be providing another chance to China to respond to the allegation made by Philippines at every round of hearings. On the other hand, if all the main arguments made by Philippines are categorically turned down by the Tribunal then it is possible that Philippines may find that its legal case has ended abruptly. In such a case, Philippines will be required to completely rethink its approach regarding the South China sea dispute. References Bautista, Lowell B. (2009) "The Historical Background, Geographical Extent and Legal Bases of the Philippine Territorial Water Claim" The Journal of Comparative Asian Development, 8 (2) Bautista, Lowell B. (2011) "Philippine Territorial Boundaries: Internal Tensions, Colonial Baggage, Ambivalent Conformity" Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, University of Malaya Emmers, R (2007), "The De-escalation of the Spratly Dispute in Sino-Southeast Asian Relations", S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Working Paper (129) Emmers, Ralf (2007), "The De-escalation of the Spratly Dispute in Sino-Southeast Asian Relations", S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Working Paper (129) Forbes, A and Henley, D (2012) Vietnam Past and Present: The North (Sino-Viet relations in Paracels and Spratlys) Chiang Mai, Cognoscenti Books ASIN