RUSHLE KYE BINOLOC GANNABAN 11-A

POSITION PAPER

Introduction
The claim over the West Philippine Sea has been a
controversial and very debatable issue for centuries and it
has garnered much discussion until now. Since the 1990s, many
countries have fought over this and tensions have escalated
notably between the Philippines and China. Both sides have
their claims over the sea and its micro islands.

Body
The Philippines' main argument, geographically speaking, is
that China's 9-dash line, published map showing 9 dashes
encircling the entire South China Sea, contradicts the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it
important to note that the UNCLOS was signed by many countries
including the Philippines and China. Under the UNCLOS a
country is given 200 nautical miles of sea as an exclusive
economic zone, as well as an additional 150 miles of ECS
(Carpio). This being said the Philippines should have
sovereignty over the West Philippine Sea and its neighbouring
islands which includes Scarborough shoal or that in 2009, in
accordance with the rules and deadlines set by the UNCLOS, the
Philippines amended its baselines law, which defines the
boundaries of the country’s territory. Aside from 17th-century
maps, international treaties, and even Chinese records, it
shows that the West Philippine Sea belongs to the Philippines
because international law says so, even before the landmark
victory of Filipinos in the Philippines versus China case at
the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 which states that
that China has "no historical rights" based on the "nine-dash
line" map. The late Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who was
an expert on maritime and international law, kept her
colleagues up to task on this matter, even reprimanding them
when they proposed that we include the entire Spratly Islands
in our baselines. “The unacceptable choice is to claim as much
territory as we want, alienate the rest of the international
community, and operate as a pariah in international law," she
said. Such was the foresight of the late senator that when the
Permanent Court of Arbitration decided in 2016, it considered
the merits of the baselines law that the Philippines defined
in 2009, and found it perfect. Because of that, we gained for
ourselves an ironclad defense that says we own all the islands
that China is occupying in the West Philippine Sea.
On the other half, China's main argument is that the entire
South China Sea belongs to them with their historical maps as
their basis and evidence that they own the island. According
to Felix K. Chang's article "Beyond the Unipolar Movement-
Beijing's Reach in the South China Sea,” China's claims over
the region is primarily based on historical records. Chinese
officials argue that the territory was discovered around 200
AD; using maps as well as artifacts found in the islands to
further support China's claim (Johnson ). China has
indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands and
the adjacent waters. Chinese activities in the South China Sea
dated back to over 2,000 years ago. China was the first
country to discover, name, explore and exploit the resources
of the South China Sea Islands and the first to continuously
exercise sovereign powers over them. In 1947, China renamed
the maritime features of the South China Sea Islands and, in
1948, published an official map which displayed a dotted line
in the South China Sea which shows that they own the region.
Since the founding of the People's Republic of China on 1
October 1949, the Chinese Government has been consistently and
actively maintaining its sovereignty over the South China Sea
Islands. Both the Declaration of the Government of the
People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea of 1958 and
the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1992 expressly provide that the
territory of the People's Republic of China includes, among
others, the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha
Islands and the Nansha Islands. All those acts affirm China's
territorial sovereignty and relevant maritime rights and
interests in the South China Sea.
It is the view of China that the Arbitral Tribunal
manifestly has no jurisdiction over this arbitration,
unilaterally initiated by the Philippines, with regard to
disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China
Sea.

Conclusion
Firstly, the essence of the subject-matter of the
arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over the relevant
maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the
scope of the Convention and is consequently not concerned with
the interpretation or application of the Convention.
Secondly, there is an agreement between China and the
Philippines to settle their disputes in the South China Sea by
negotiations, as embodied in bilateral instruments and the
DOC. Thus the unilateral initiation of the present arbitration
by the Philippines has clearly violated international law.
Thirdly, even assuming that the subject-matter of the
arbitration did concern the interpretation or application of
the Convention, it has been excluded by the 2006 declaration
filed by China under Article 298 of the Convention, due to its
being an integral part of the dispute of maritime delimitation
between the two States.
Fourthly, China has never accepted any compulsory
procedures of the Convention with regard to the Philippines'
claims for arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal shall fully
respect the right of the States Parties to the Convention to
choose the means of dispute settlement of their own accord,
and exercise its competence to decide on its jurisdiction
within the confines of the Convention. The initiation of the
present arbitration by the Philippines is an abuse of the
compulsory disputes.