Philippines' 5 arguments vs China

SOURCE: Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario outlined these claims on Tuesday,
July 7, 2015 the first day of arguments at The Hague. (PUBLISHED ON NEWS)

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.

Comment:

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.

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."

Comment: The Philippines, however, asserts that the 9-dash line is baseless under UNCLOS.
This UN convention allows an EEZ, not a 9-dash line. (Source: UNCLOS)

3. Rocks vs islands

ARGUMENT: "Third, that the various EXPLANATION: Under UNCLOS, habitable

maritime features relied upon by China as a islands can generate a 200-nautical-mile
basis upon which to assert its claims in the EEZ. Rocks cannot.
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."

Comment:

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) It’s on the FILE “SOURCE”

ARTICLE Source: https://www.rappler.com/nation/4173-scarborough-according-to-manila,-

beijing

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 EXPLANATION: China prevents Filipinos

breached the Convention by interfering with from fishing in the West Philippine Sea.
the Philippines’ exercise of its sovereign UNCLOS, on the other hand, gives Filipinos
rights and jurisdiction." the exclusive rights to fish within the
Philippines' EEZ in the disputed waters.

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."
Comment:
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.

China, for its part, refuses to answer the Philippines' arguments in arbitration
proceedings. It has instead published a position paper debunking the Philippines'
claims. (SOURCE: FILE “SOURCE”)

In the end, the Philippines says, the case at The Hague is set to provide a long-term
solution to the sea dispute.

ARGUMENTS OF CHINA
1. China gives the name Huangyan Island
Argument:
China gives the name Huangyan Island to the
Reason: Chinese astronomer Guo
disputed Scarborough Shoal. Shoujing then surveyed the seas around
China for Yuan emperor Kublai Khan.
Guo chose Scarborough or Huangyan
Island “as the point (sic) in the South
China Sea.” China has since included
Huangyan Island in its official maps, and
in its provinces like Guangdong and later,
Hainan. The country says it has also
declared its sovereignty over Huangyan
Island in all its announcements and
statements on the South China Sea.

2. About territorial sovereignty

Argument:
Beijing argued that the case is primarily
about territorial sovereignty, which is
beyond the scope of the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS). The Philippines and
China are both parties to the treaty.

3. Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on

the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by
the Republic of the Philippines
Argument: Reason:
“Since the 1970s, the Philippines has illegally “The Philippines' activities mentioned on the
occupied or laid claims to some maritime argument have violated the Charter of the
features of China in the South China Sea. In United Nations and international law, and
addition, the Philippines has also illegally seriously encroached upon China's territorial
explored and exploited the resources on sovereignty and maritime rights and
those maritime features and in the adjacent interests.”
maritime areas,” said a summary of the
position paper.

Comment:

In contrast, the Philippines said that the arbitration case concerns a maritime dispute,
not a territorial row. It is asking the tribunal to declare maritime features in the sea as
“rocks,” not islands.

Under UNCLOS, rocks do no generate an entitlement of more than 12 miles while

islands or land entitle a state to a 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
within which it can exploit resources like fish, oil, and gas. Source: UNCLOS

The Philippines asked the tribunal to declare that China illegally exploited the
resources in its EEZ, and occupied the features there. It also asked the arbitrators to
require Beijing to stop these “unlawful activities.”

4. International law allows it to choose any means to settle disputes

Reason:“Its underlying goal is not, as the
Arguments: China also argued that
Philippines has proclaimed, to seek
international law allows it to choose any
peaceful settlement of the South China
means to settle disputes. Its preference
Sea issue, but rather, by resorting to
has always been direct bilateral
arbitration, to put political pressure on
negotiations, where it can assert its
China, so as to deny China's lawful rights
economic and political might.
in the South China….This is certainly
unacceptable to China.”
China reiterated that by pursuing
arbitration, the Philippines went against
the “common wish” of China and the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) to craft a legally binding Code
of Conduct in the South China Sea.

Comment:
The Philippines has maintained that arbitration is a separate means of settling the dispute,
and does not jeopardize negotiations on the Code.