Philippines' 5 arguments vs China over China's 9 dash line

[jerry_tan]

EXPLAINER: Philippines' 5 arguments vs China
In a nutshell, Rappler explains the Philippines' 5 arguments in its historic case against China over the West Philippine Sea

TEAM PHILIPPINES. The Philippine team poses in the Peace Palace at The Hague, Netherlands, before the start of the oral arguments in connection with the arbitration case against China. Photo courtesy of DFA

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. (READ: Philippines vows to smash China's strongest argument)

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. (READ: PH vs China at The Hague: '80% of fish' at stake)

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.

1. China's 'historical rights'

ARGUMENT: "First, that China is not entitled to exercise what it refers to as 'historic rights' over the waters, seabed, and subsoil beyond the limits of its entitlements under the Convention."

EXPLANATION: China says the South China Sea has belonged to it for centuries. This is why it claims "historical rights" over the disputed sea.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court, however, says that "even if true," these historical rights have no bearing on sea disputes under UNCLOS. Carpio explains that UNCLOS "extinguished all historical rights of other states." This UN convention instead gives each coastal state an EEZ. (READ: Top Philippine judge uses Chinese maps vs China)

2. China's 9-dash line

ARGUMENT: "Second, that the so-called 9-dash line has no basis whatsoever under international law insofar as it purports to define the limits of China’s claim to 'historic rights.'"

EXPLANATION: The 9-dash line is China's demarcation to claim virtually the entire South China Sea. China says this is based on its "historical rights."

The Philippines, however, asserts that the 9-dash line is baseless under UNCLOS. This UN convention allows an EEZ, not a 9-dash line. (READ: No such thing as 9-dash line – US envoy)

3. Rocks vs islands

ARGUMENT: "Third, that the various maritime features relied upon by China as a basis upon which to assert its claims in the South China Sea are not islands that generate entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Rather, some are 'rocks' within the meaning of Article 121, paragraph 3; others are low-tide elevations; and still others are permanently submerged. As a result, none are capable of generating entitlements beyond 12NM (nautical miles), and some generate no entitlements at all. China’s recent massive reclamation activities cannot lawfully change the original nature and character of these features."

EXPLANATION: Under UNCLOS, habitable islands can generate a 200-nautical-mile EEZ. Rocks cannot.

China describes some features in the South China Sea as islands. One of these is Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), a rocky sandbar. China claims these supposed islands.

China also says these "islands" generate an EEZ, which could overlap with the EEZ of the Philippines. The problem for the Philippines is, China declared in 2006 that it "does not accept" arbitral jurisdiction when it comes to overlapping EEZs. UNCLOS allows this exception.

This is partly why China says the tribunal at The Hague has no right to hear the Philippine case – because it supposedly involves overlapping EEZs.

"The maritime dispute between the Philippines and China boils down to whether there are overlapping EEZs between the Philippines and China in the West Philippine Sea," Senior Associate Justice Carpio says.

Carpio, however, explains that "China has no EEZ that overlaps with the Philippines' EEZ in the Scarborough area." Carpio also believes an international tribunal "will deny Itu Aba," the largest island in the Spratlys, an EEZ. (READ: Why China calls it Huangyan Island)

The Philippines adds that China's reclamation activities cannot "lawfully change" rocks into islands.

4. Breach of the law of the sea

ARGUMENT: "Fourth, that China has breached the Convention by interfering with the Philippines’ exercise of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction."

EXPLANATION: China prevents Filipinos from fishing in the West Philippine Sea. UNCLOS, on the other hand, gives Filipinos the exclusive rights to fish within the Philippines' EEZ in the disputed waters. (READ: PH fisherfolk: Living with Chinese coast guard's hostility)

5. Damage to environment

ARGUMENT: "China has irreversibly damaged the regional marine environment, in breach of UNCLOS, by its destruction of coral reefs in the South China Sea, including areas within the Philippines’ EEZ, by its destructive and hazardous fishing practices, and by its harvesting of endangered species."

EXPLANATION: China is building artificial islands in the West Philippine Sea. The Philippines says China's reclamation activities have buried 311 hectares of coral reefs – around 7 times the size of Vatican City. This can mean P4.8 billion ($106.29 million) in lost economic benefits. At the same time, China is accused of poaching. (READ: PH: China 'irreversibly damaged' environment)

China, for its part, refuses to answer the Philippines' arguments in arbitration proceedings. It has instead published a position paper debunking the Philippines' claims.

In the end, the Philippines says, the case at The Hague is set to provide a long-term solution to the sea dispute. (READ: FULL TEXT: The Philippines' opening salvo at The Hague)

For Del Rosario, UNCLOS provisions "allow the weak to challenge the powerful on an equal footing, confident in the conviction that principles trump power; that law triumphs over force; and that right prevails over might." – Rappler.com


http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/98839-philippines-china-hague-arguments-explanation

 

[Jlaw]

LOL, too much talking make your mouth dry and smelly breath. Pinoy got played by Viet but still does not even recognize they got played

My advice for PN is to attack PLA and start a war.

 

[jerry_tan]

Good to read and bring your strongest arguments here why China cant proved its claim, no bullying tactics and show of force

LOL, too much talking make your mouth dry and smelly breath. Pinoy got played by Viet but still does not even recognize they got played

My advice for PN is to attack PLA and start a war.

your mind is clouded by your communist government propaganda try to read it and understand it.

 

[Mugwop]

EXPLAINER: Philippines' 5 arguments vs China
In a nutshell, Rappler explains the Philippines' 5 arguments in its historic case against China over the West Philippine Sea

TEAM PHILIPPINES. The Philippine team poses in the Peace Palace at The Hague, Netherlands, before the start of the oral arguments in connection with the arbitration case against China. Photo courtesy of DFA

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. (READ: Philippines vows to smash China's strongest argument)

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. (READ: PH vs China at The Hague: '80% of fish' at stake)

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.

1. China's 'historical rights'

ARGUMENT: "First, that China is not entitled to exercise what it refers to as 'historic rights' over the waters, seabed, and subsoil beyond the limits of its entitlements under the Convention."

EXPLANATION: China says the South China Sea has belonged to it for centuries. This is why it claims "historical rights" over the disputed sea.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court, however, says that "even if true," these historical rights have no bearing on sea disputes under UNCLOS. Carpio explains that UNCLOS "extinguished all historical rights of other states." This UN convention instead gives each coastal state an EEZ. (READ: Top Philippine judge uses Chinese maps vs China)

2. China's 9-dash line

ARGUMENT: "Second, that the so-called 9-dash line has no basis whatsoever under international law insofar as it purports to define the limits of China’s claim to 'historic rights.'"

EXPLANATION: The 9-dash line is China's demarcation to claim virtually the entire South China Sea. China says this is based on its "historical rights."

The Philippines, however, asserts that the 9-dash line is baseless under UNCLOS. This UN convention allows an EEZ, not a 9-dash line. (READ: No such thing as 9-dash line – US envoy)

3. Rocks vs islands

ARGUMENT: "Third, that the various maritime features relied upon by China as a basis upon which to assert its claims in the South China Sea are not islands that generate entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Rather, some are 'rocks' within the meaning of Article 121, paragraph 3; others are low-tide elevations; and still others are permanently submerged. As a result, none are capable of generating entitlements beyond 12NM (nautical miles), and some generate no entitlements at all. China’s recent massive reclamation activities cannot lawfully change the original nature and character of these features."

EXPLANATION: Under UNCLOS, habitable islands can generate a 200-nautical-mile EEZ. Rocks cannot.

China describes some features in the South China Sea as islands. One of these is Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), a rocky sandbar. China claims these supposed islands.

China also says these "islands" generate an EEZ, which could overlap with the EEZ of the Philippines. The problem for the Philippines is, China declared in 2006 that it "does not accept" arbitral jurisdiction when it comes to overlapping EEZs. UNCLOS allows this exception.

This is partly why China says the tribunal at The Hague has no right to hear the Philippine case – because it supposedly involves overlapping EEZs.

"The maritime dispute between the Philippines and China boils down to whether there are overlapping EEZs between the Philippines and China in the West Philippine Sea," Senior Associate Justice Carpio says.

Carpio, however, explains that "China has no EEZ that overlaps with the Philippines' EEZ in the Scarborough area." Carpio also believes an international tribunal "will deny Itu Aba," the largest island in the Spratlys, an EEZ. (READ: Why China calls it Huangyan Island)

The Philippines adds that China's reclamation activities cannot "lawfully change" rocks into islands.

4. Breach of the law of the sea

ARGUMENT: "Fourth, that China has breached the Convention by interfering with the Philippines’ exercise of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction."

EXPLANATION: China prevents Filipinos from fishing in the West Philippine Sea. UNCLOS, on the other hand, gives Filipinos the exclusive rights to fish within the Philippines' EEZ in the disputed waters. (READ: PH fisherfolk: Living with Chinese coast guard's hostility)

5. Damage to environment

ARGUMENT: "China has irreversibly damaged the regional marine environment, in breach of UNCLOS, by its destruction of coral reefs in the South China Sea, including areas within the Philippines’ EEZ, by its destructive and hazardous fishing practices, and by its harvesting of endangered species."

EXPLANATION: China is building artificial islands in the West Philippine Sea. The Philippines says China's reclamation activities have buried 311 hectares of coral reefs – around 7 times the size of Vatican City. This can mean P4.8 billion ($106.29 million) in lost economic benefits. At the same time, China is accused of poaching. (READ: PH: China 'irreversibly damaged' environment)

China, for its part, refuses to answer the Philippines' arguments in arbitration proceedings. It has instead published a position paper debunking the Philippines' claims.

In the end, the Philippines says, the case at The Hague is set to provide a long-term solution to the sea dispute. (READ: FULL TEXT: The Philippines' opening salvo at The Hague)

For Del Rosario, UNCLOS provisions "allow the weak to challenge the powerful on an equal footing, confident in the conviction that principles trump power; that law triumphs over force; and that right prevails over might." – Rappler.com


http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/98839-philippines-china-hague-arguments-explanation

Are you a filipino who resides in Afghanistan or a Afghani who is Pro-filipino?

 

[jerry_tan]

Are you a filipino who resides in Afghanistan or a Afghani who is Pro-filipino?

I'm a tsinoy (Filipino-Chinese) previously working in Afganistan contract already ended.

 

[TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics]

I'm a tsinoy (Filipino-Chinese)

You are a loyal civilian of Philipine,you don't need to tell us you are a Chinese_Filipino.
China doesn't admit the judgement at all，so “Philippine VS China” never exists.

 

[kankan326]

Forget the arbitration. We are not interested in it. I think China should do two things first. One, sever all economic and diplomatic relationship with PH. Stop importing maids and banana from it. Filipinos love Japan and USA. Let them import goods from their friends. Two, sink PH grounded ship in Renai reef. Occupy more islands controlled by PH if necessary.

 

[xunzi]

Please allow me to address each.

1. China's 'historical rights'
Our rights is based on international law governing international treaty and foreign recognition. We are not based on jungle laws as some banana country so we need to get this fact straight.

2. China's 9-dash line
We said many times that this is in referencing to our history titles. Please refer to the islands and its adjacent water.

3. Rocks vs islands
We said nothing of the EEZ of our islands so please refrain from putting words in our mouth.

4. Breach of the law of the sea
Overlapping water takes precedent over EEZ. Why can't you understand this simple point? Go back and learn UNCLOS before wasting our times repeating this simple fact.

5. Damage to environment
Groundless and baseless. Our research demonstrated the environmental impact is minimal at best. If you want to know what damaging to the environment is your stupid park rusty boat. LOL Also this is not mentioning, we are the last to do reclaimed on an islands so all concerns are basically groundless and exaggerated.

Anymore concern? Please dont' be shy on me.

 

[Mugwop]

I'm a tsinoy (Filipino-Chinese) previously working in Afganistan contract already ended.

Oh ok

 

[Jlaw]

Forget the arbitration. We are not interested in it. I think China should do two things first. One, sever all economic and diplomatic relationship with PH. Stop importing maids and banana from it. Filipinos love Japan and USA. Let them import goods from their friends. Two, sink PH grounded ship in Renai reef. Occupy more islands controlled by PH if necessary.

CPC won't do that

 

[jerry_tan]

I see no other than a Han Jian (race traitor).

There is no such thing as race traitor ,it so happened that I'm born in the Philippines which believed in freedom of expression while your are born in a communist state.

I know a Gerald Tan, another Han Jian very much like yourself, who also goes by the name Jerry Tan. I wonder if that's you and he's married to a Phillipines girl.

Whats the problem with marrying a Filipina girl , Philippines is a diverse race my mother is a Spanish my wife is Fil-Korean.

1. China's 'historical rights'
Our rights is based on international law governing international treaty and foreign recognition. We are not based on jungle laws as some banana country so we need to get this fact straight.

Since it is International law why not face the Philippines in Hague and prove your claimed, China knew that they will lose mo need to exert any efforts.

2. China's 9-dash line
We said many times that this is in referencing to our history titles. Please refer to the islands and its adjacent water.

We have evidence of your history an ancient map from China , SCS is not part of your map. Furthermore history is not acceptable in modern treaties.

3. Rocks vs islands
We said nothing of the EEZ of our islands so please refrain from putting words in our mouth.

4. Breach of the law of the sea
Overlapping water takes precedent over EEZ. Why can't you understand this simple point? Go back and learn UNCLOS before wasting our times repeating this simple fact.

You don't have any Island near Philippines EEZ therefore no overlapping EEZ.

5. Damage to environment
Groundless and baseless. Our research demonstrated the environmental impact is minimal at best. If you want to know what damaging to the environment is your stupid park rusty boat. LOL Also this is not mentioning, we are the last to do reclaimed on an islands so all concerns are basically groundless and exaggerated.

Most Chinese poachers caught with endangered sea turtles and illegal harvesting or destroying of corals.

Forget the arbitration. We are not interested in it. I think China should do two things first. One, sever all economic and diplomatic relationship with PH. Stop importing maids and banana from it. Filipinos love Japan and USA. Let them import goods from their friends. Two, sink PH grounded ship in Renai reef. Occupy more islands controlled by PH if necessary.

We love China too, so happened that your communist government is a bully , arrogant and support thievery.

 

[rott]

I wonder why my post was deleted. Perhaps it's time to leave the forum for good.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

In fact the original 11 dash lines was drawn up by the Republic of China (CHINA) to the surprise of many with the help of the United States legal office and submitted and accepted by the United Nation in 1947.

 

[70U63]

Even I disagree with China 's so called 9 dash line, but others also can't claim anything based on the international law. Only Taiwan (or indirectly China) can claim EEZ for Taiping island as the island is the only one with fresh water.

 

[TaiShang]

ARGUMENT: "First, that China is not entitled to exercise what it refers to as 'historic rights' over the waters, seabed, and subsoil beyond the limits of its entitlements under the Convention."

EXPLANATION: China says the South China Sea has belonged to it for centuries. This is why it claims "historical rights" over the disputed sea.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court, however, says that "even if true," these historical rights have no bearing on sea disputes under UNCLOS.

Exactly, UNCLOS has no say and power over historical claims as they relate to sovereignty which is outside the purview of UNCLOS. This also annuls PH claims in their hearing that they do not challenge China's sovereignty claims, but only status of the features and delimitation.

PH case is about sovereignty and UNCLOS has no powers to decide upon sovereignty disputes. The ruling is worthless.

ARGUMENT: "Second, that the so-called 9-dash line has no basis whatsoever under international law insofar as it purports to define the limits of China’s claim to 'historic rights.'"

EXPLANATION: The 9-dash line is China's demarcation to claim virtually the entire South China Sea. China says this is based on its "historical rights."

The Philippines, however, asserts that the 9-dash line is baseless under UNCLOS.

U-shaped line predates UNCLOS and China put an exemption clause (along with PH,VN and others), indicating that sovereignty claims is outside the purview of the UNCLOS.

China describes some features in the South China Sea as islands. One of these is Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), a rocky sandbar. China claims these supposed islands.

Even of the 9 islands PH mentions in their Submissions are not islands, Taiping, the largest naturally formed structure in SCS, is an island and its 200 NM EEZ covers all but one features mentioned in PH submissions (Except China's Scarborough). Hence, PH claims over the nature of the 8 features are worthless.

One wonders why the Pinoy government did not include Taiping in their 15 original submissions.

ARGUMENT: "Fourth, that China has breached the Convention by interfering with the Philippines’ exercise of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction."

EXPLANATION: China prevents Filipinos from fishing in the West Philippine Sea.

Because China has been fishing within the EEZ of its largest island, Taiping, and hence the activities are legal. PH activities, on the other hand, are illegal, and China has the rights to enforce domestic law.

ARGUMENT: "China has irreversibly damaged the regional marine environment, in breach of UNCLOS, by its destruction of coral reefs in the South China Sea, including areas within the Philippines’ EEZ, by its destructive and hazardous fishing practices, and by its harvesting of endangered species."

EXPLANATION: China is building artificial islands in the West Philippine Sea.

The fact is, PH and others started island reclamation two decades earlier. Their incapacity to develop islands cannot rule out their explicit intention to develop further.

China, on the other hand, has scientific capacity and sent numerous scientific expeditions in the islands it administers. It has been proven that China's law enforcement activities have prevented illegal PH fishing and damage in the said areas.