armchairPrivate
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,587
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
"China is NOT claiming all the water within the nine dash line" ~That is the question the Philippines seek through arbitration~
If everything goes by UNCLOS and China is not claiming all the water within the nine dash line, the Philippines should have its EEZ 200 nm westward from its main islands regardless of who possess the rocks/island/reef in spratly (save 12nm territorial sea). But it is not the case unfortunately as China deter any possible exercise of juridiction of EEZ by the Philippines.
Please educate yourself about UNCLOS;
"REGIME OF ISLANDS
Article 121. Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf."
Most of the reefs/shoal/ and island cannot sustain human habitation or economic life and most are under water at high tide. Only Itu-Aba Island (occupied by Taiwan) can, and only that island can have the EEZ.
Please refer to the case of Okinotorishima by Japan, which has been declared as "rocks" and dont deserve EEZ.
And because of that, china has been ambiguous to state what exactly the nine-line dash is. This is evident in numerous "stand-off" between China/Vietnam, China/Philippines, China/Indonesia, and China/Malaysia in which China act as if the nine-dash line is its EEZ.
Philippines seeks clarification through PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration), That is the essence, Look at the word "maritime jurisdiction". It is not even talking about the islands/reefs/rocks.
Please take a look at the arbitration press release.
http://www.pca-cpa.org/showfile.asp?fil_id=2311
"The Philippines v. China arbitration was commenced on 22 January 2013 when the Philippines served China with a Notification and Statement of Claim “with respect to the dispute with China over the maritime jurisdiction of the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea.” On 19 February 2013, China presented the Philippines with a diplomatic note in which it described “the Position of China on the South China Sea issues,” and rejected and returned the Philippines’ Notification. "
As presented by Justice Antonio T. Carpi:
"The Philippines’ arbitration case against China is solely a maritime dispute and does not involve any territorial dispute. The Philippines is asking the tribunal if China’s 9-dashed lines can negate the Philippines’ EEZ as guaranteed under UNCLOS. The Philippines is also asking the tribunal if certain rocks above water at high tide, like Scarborough Shoal, generate a 200 NM EEZ or only a 12 NM territorial sea. The Philippines is further asking the tribunal if China can appropriate low-tide elevations (LTEs), like Mischief Reef and Subi Reef, within the Philippines’ EEZ. These disputes involve the interpretation or application of the provisions of UNCLOS.
The Philippines is not asking the tribunal to delimit by nautical measurements overlapping EEZs between China and the Philippines. The Philippines is also not asking the tribunal what country has sovereignty over an island, or rock above water at high tide, in the West Philippine Sea.
Under UNCLOS, every coastal state is entitled to a 200 NM EEZ, subject to boundary delimitation in case of overlapping EEZs with other coastal states. The EEZ is the area extending to 200 NM measured from the baselines of a coastal state. Under UNCLOS, EEZs must be drawn from baselines of the coast of a continental land or island capable of human habitation of its own. This basic requirement stems from the international law principle that the “land dominates the sea” – or to put it another way, areas in the seas and oceans can be claimed and measured only from land."
I don't know and I don't care what the Philippines government's position is. What I can say from a logical thinking's person point of view that China does not claim the whole body of water in South China Sea..
Those lines were called dashed lines, not SOLID lines.
Those were lines, not CIRCLES.
This tells you part of this body of water is not for China to claim, some belongs to other countries and for international use (international water).
I challenge you to show me an official document from the Chinese government which claims the whole body of water within the 9 dashed lines.
