Nine – Dash Line & Pacta Sunt Servanda (“agreements must be kept”)

Source:

http://www.imoa.ph/the-rule-of-law-in-the-west-philippine-sea-dispute/?
fbclid=IwAR2oneewsWSCp1WtbjgTyH28ikCib_R4qZTxah7gccRoGA9rCx4eSr-Kv5k

By : Hon. Justice Antonio T. Carpio

I.

Is there a Rule of Law that governs sovereign nations to achieve a just and
orderly world?  If there is, what is the source of that Rule of Law?  How is
the Rule of Law enforced in the international sphere?

We ask these questions because the Philippines today is invoking the Rule
of Law in resolving its maritime dispute with China in the West Philippine
Sea.

II.

The Philippines wisely chose an arbitral tribunal under the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, in resolving its maritime
dispute with China.

The latest codification of the Rule of Law on maritime matters is the

UNCLOS, which was adopted in 1982 and entered into force in 1994.
UNCLOS is considered as the greatest achievement of mankind in
codifying international law.  UNCLOS is the fundamental source of the
Rule of Law in the governance of the oceans and seas of our planet.  In
short, UNCLOS is the world’s Constitution for our oceans and seas, which
comprise two-thirds of the surface of our planet.

By ratifying UNCLOS, member states bound themselves, and gave their

consent in advance, to follow a finely crafted dispute settlement
mechanism specified in UNCLOS.   The dispute settlement mechanism is
compulsory on “any dispute concerning the interpretation or application”
of UNCLOS, save in certain limited cases where a member state may opt
out or make reservations.

China’s 9-dashed line claim nullifies the operation of UNCLOS in almost

the entire South China Sea.    China’s 9-dashed line claim converts the
South China Sea into an internal Chinese lake, allowing China to
unilaterally appropriate for itself what belongs to other sovereign coastal
 states, in defiance of UNCLOS. China’s 9-dashed line claim simply cannot
co-exist with UNCLOS – one kills the other.

III.

Every state that ratified UNCLOS bound itself to fulfill its treaty obligations
in good faith, and thus align its domestic laws with UNCLOS.  In adopting
its 2009 Baselines Law, the Philippines scrupulously followed
UNCLOS.  The Supreme Court decided unanimously and affirmed the
constitutionality of the Baselines Law, the strict observance by the
Philippines of UNCLOS in enacting the Baselines Law “manifests the
Philippine State’s responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda
obligation under UNCLOS.”

Thus, the Philippines comes to the arbitral tribunal with clean hands.  On
the other hand, China’s 1998 Law on Exclusive Economic Zone and
Continental Shelf claims “historic rights” to all geologic formations in the
South China Sea, whether above water or under water, in gross violation of
UNCLOS.  That is why we are also asking the tribunal to direct China to
bring its maritime laws into conformity with UNCLOS.