"Respecting International Law: Upholding Philippine Sovereignty in the West Philippine

Sea."
"Navigating Territorial Disputes: A Comprehensive Analysis of the West Philippine
Sea/South China Sea Issue."

Adchang, Ringel
Cael, Larenz Jerzy
Mariano, Mariella Jasmine
Pacursa, Lambret

The Philippines strongly asserts its sovereignty over the West Philippine Sea, which
is also known as the South China Sea. We reject China's claim of historical rights
over almost the entire maritime area and call for a peaceful resolution to the
dispute based on international law. This position paper presents the historical
and legal basis of our claims and provides evidence as to why the Philippines
deserves the islands in the West Philippine Sea.

Legal Basis of Philippine Claims

The Philippines' territorial claims over the West Philippine Sea are grounded on
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS
defines the rights and responsibilities of countries in their use of the world's
oceans, including guidelines for businesses, environmental protection, and
management of marine natural resources. As a signatory to UNCLOS, the
Philippines is entitled to a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and
continental shelf from its baselines.

The Philippines' historical claims are also supported by its long-standing presence
and activities in the area. The country has been occupying and utilizing certain
features in the West Philippine Sea since the 1970s, well before China's claim of
historical rights. Filipino fishermen have been fishing in these waters for
generations, and the country's military forces have maintained a constant
presence in the region.

Exclusive Economic Zone

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a maritime zone defined by the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that extends up to 200
nautical miles (370 kilometers) from a coastal state's baselines. Within this zone, a
coastal state has exclusive rights to explore, exploit, and manage the natural
resources found in the water column, on the seafloor, and within the subsoil. The
EEZ is a key component of the international maritime legal framework, and its
definition and allocation have significant implications for maritime boundary
disputes and the management of marine resources.

The Philippines has claimed that it is entitled to an EEZ in the West Philippine Sea
based on UNCLOS, which it ratified in 1984. As a signatory to UNCLOS, the
Philippines has a right to an EEZ and continental shelf from its baselines. The
Philippines has defined its baselines, which serve as the starting point for
measuring its territorial sea, in accordance with UNCLOS.

The Philippines' claim to an EEZ in the West Philippine Sea is supported by several
pieces of evidence. First, the Philippines has been occupying and utilizing
certain features in the West Philippine Sea since the 1970s, well before China's
claim of historical rights. Second, Philippine fishermen have been fishing in these
waters for generations, and the Philippine military has maintained a constant
presence in the region. Third, the Philippines' EEZ claim in the West Philippine Sea
is consistent with UNCLOS, which defines the rights of coastal states to establish
an EEZ and continental shelf beyond their territorial waters.

In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, Netherlands

ruled in favor of the Philippines in a case against China's maritime claims in the
South China Sea. The PCA held that China's nine-dash line claim was invalid
under UNCLOS and that the Philippines had sovereign rights to resources within
its EEZ, including the disputed Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal.
The ruling also stated that China's actions in the West Philippine Sea, including
the construction of artificial islands and interference with Philippine fishing and
oil exploration, were illegal and violated Philippine sovereignty.

In addition to the PCA ruling, the Philippines has also received support from
other countries and international organizations in its EEZ claim in the West
Philippine Sea. The United States has expressed its support for the Philippines'
position and has conducted freedom of navigation operations in the region to
challenge China's excessive maritime claims. The Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) has also issued statements calling for the peaceful resolution of
disputes in accordance with international law, including UNCLOS.

To summarize, the Philippines' claim to an EEZ in the West Philippine Sea is based
on UNCLOS, historical evidence of occupation and utilization, and the PCA
ruling. These pieces of evidence support the Philippines' assertion of sovereign
rights over the disputed waters and resources and highlight the importance of
upholding the international legal framework for the peaceful resolution of
maritime disputes.

The "Nine-Dash Line" Claim

The Nine-Dash Line is a controversial demarcation line used by China to assert its
territorial claims in the South China Sea. It is also known as the "U-shaped line" or
the "Cow's Tongue" line. The line consists of nine dashes, or segments, that
encircle almost the entire South China Sea, covering an area of over 1.4 million
square miles (3.5 million square kilometers). The Nine-Dash Line overlaps with the
exclusive economic zones and territorial waters of several countries in the
region, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan, and has
been a source of tension and conflict in the region.

China's claim to the Nine-Dash Line is based on historical evidence, including

ancient maps, official documents, and cultural ties. However, the line has no
legal basis under international law, particularly the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

China's historical evidence for its claim to the Nine-Dash Line includes maps and
documents from the Han dynasty (206 BC-220 AD) and the Ming dynasty (1368-
1644) that depict the South China Sea as part of China's territory. For example,
the Han dynasty map, known as the "Selden Map," shows the South China Sea
as part of China's territory. Additionally, China has cited official documents from
the Qing dynasty (1644-1912) that declare China's sovereignty over the South
China Sea. For example, the 1909 Declaration of the Government of the Qing
dynasty claimed sovereignty over islands in the South China Sea.

China also cites cultural and ethnic ties as evidence of its historical claim to the
South China Sea. For example, China argues that the Spratly Islands, which are
claimed by several countries in the region, have been part of China's traditional
fishing grounds for centuries. China claims that Chinese fishermen and traders
have been active in the area since ancient times, demonstrating China's
historical connection to the islands.

Despite China's arguments based on historical evidence, the Nine-Dash Line has
been rejected by other countries in the region and is not recognized under
international law. UNCLOS, which governs the rights and responsibilities of
countries in their use of the world's oceans, defines the rights of coastal states to
establish an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf beyond
their territorial waters. Under UNCLOS, a coastal state can claim an EEZ of up to
200 nautical miles from its baselines. However, the Nine-Dash Line encroaches
on the EEZs and territorial waters of other countries, including the Philippines and
Vietnam.

In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that China's
claims to the Nine-Dash Line were invalid under international law. The court
found that the line had no legal basis and that China's actions, including its
construction of artificial islands and military facilities in the South China Sea, had
violated the sovereign rights of other countries in the region.

In conclusion, while China has presented historical evidence to support its claim
to the Nine-Dash Line, it has no legal basis under international law. The Nine-
Dash Line has been rejected by other countries in the region and has been the
source of tension and conflict in the South China Sea.

The Philippines believes that the nine-dash line claim of China is illegal and
without basis. The line violates the principles of international law and UNCLOS,
which define the rights of coastal states to establish an exclusive economic zone
(EEZ) and the continental shelf beyond their territorial waters.

Chinese Aggression in the West Philippine Sea

China's aggressive actions in the West Philippine Sea have caused significant
harm to the marine ecosystem and have put the livelihoods of Filipino fishermen
at risk. The construction of military bases on disputed islands and reefs has
resulted in the destruction of coral reefs and marine habitats in the area,
negatively impacting the Philippines' fishing industry, which is a vital source of
livelihood for many Filipinos.

China's aggressive actions in the West Philippine Sea have caused significant
harm to the marine ecosystem and have put the livelihoods of Filipino fishermen
at risk. China has reclaimed and built artificial islands on seven reefs in the
disputed waters, including Mischief Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, and Subi Reef. These
artificial islands now have runways, radar installations, and other military facilities,
and are used by the Chinese military to project its power and assert its control
over the area.

The construction of these military bases has caused massive environmental

damage, including the destruction of coral reefs and marine habitats. The
destruction of the marine ecosystem in the West Philippine Sea has negatively
impacted the fishing industry, which is a vital source of livelihood for many
Filipinos. According to a report by the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the destruction of coral reefs in the West Philippine Sea could cause the
loss of over 20,000 jobs in the fishing and tourism sectors in the Philippines.

Building and militarization of artificial islands

China has been building and militarizing artificial islands in the West Philippine
Sea since 2014, which has been viewed by neighboring countries and the
international community as a violation of international law. These artificial islands
have been equipped with runways, hangars, radar systems, missile shelters, and
other military facilities. In 2015, the US-based Asia Maritime Transparency
Initiative (AMTI) released satellite images showing China's construction activities
on Fiery Cross, Mischief, and Subi reefs in the Spratly Islands. These activities have
continued despite the Permanent Court of Arbitration's ruling in 2016, which
invalidated China's nine-dash line claim in the West Philippine Sea.

Harassment of Filipino fishermen

Filipino fishermen have been reporting harassment by Chinese coast guard and
navy vessels in the West Philippine Sea. In May 2020, a Philippine fishing boat was
sunk by a Chinese vessel near Recto Bank, which is within the Philippines'
exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The Chinese vessel left the Filipino crew stranded
in the water until they were rescued by Vietnamese fishermen. The incident was
condemned by the Philippine government and the international community. In
2021, a similar incident occurred when a Chinese coast guard vessel fired
warning shots at Filipino fishing boats near Scarborough Shoal.

Encroachment on Philippine territory

China has been encroaching on Philippine territory in the West Philippine Sea by
conducting activities within the country's EEZ. In March 2021, the Philippine
government reported over 200 Chinese militia vessels anchored near Whitsun
Reef, which is within the country's EEZ. The vessels were believed to be manned
by Chinese militia forces and were used for surveillance and intelligence-
gathering activities. The presence of these vessels has raised concerns over
China's intentions in the region.

Philippines' Call for a Peaceful Resolution

The Philippines calls for a peaceful resolution of the dispute based on
international law. The country believes that the dispute should be resolved
through diplomatic means, and all parties should respect the rights of coastal
states in the region, including the Philippines, to their EEZ and continental shelf.

The Philippines urges China to respect the UNCLOS and to abandon its nine-
dash line claim in the West Philippine Sea. The country also calls on all countries
to support the rules-based international order and to work towards a peaceful
and stable regional environment.

Evidence Supporting the Philippines' Claim over the Islands

There are several pieces of evidence that support the Philippines' claim over the
islands in the West Philippine Sea. Firstly, the Philippines has occupied and

utilized certain features in the area since the 1970s, well before China's claim of
historical rights. Filipino fishermen have been fishing in these waters for
generations, and the country's military forces have maintained a constant
presence in the region.

One example of Philippine occupation is the Scarborough Shoal, which is

located approximately 230 kilometers off the coast of Luzon Island. The
Scarborough Shoal, also known as Panatag Shoal, Bajo de Masinloc, or
Huangyan Island, is a triangular-shaped chain of reefs and rocks that surround a
lagoon. It is a vital fishing ground and a rich source of marine biodiversity. The
area has been frequented by Philippine fishermen for centuries, and Philippine
authorities have exercised jurisdiction over the shoal since the Spanish colonial
period.

The Scarborough Shoal has been a flashpoint of tensions between the

Philippines and China since 2012, when Chinese vessels prevented Philippine
vessels from approaching the shoal, effectively taking control of the area. In
2013, the Philippines filed a case against China before the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, seeking to invalidate China's nine-dash line
claim and to clarify the maritime entitlements of the parties involved. The PCA
ruled in favor of the Philippines in 2016, declaring that China's nine-dash line
claim has no legal basis and that China had violated the Philippines' sovereign
rights in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Secondly, the Philippines has exclusive rights to the resources within its EEZ and
continental shelf under UNCLOS. China's nine-dash line claim overlaps with the
Philippines' EEZ and continental shelf, infringing on our rights to exploit the
resources in these areas.

In 2013, the Philippines presented an argument to the Permanent Court of

Arbitration (PCA) that Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, and other
features in the South China Sea are rocks and not islands, and therefore do not
generate an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf. This showcases
inconsistencies in the claims of China regarding its map. The following is a
detailed explanation of the argument presented by the Philippines:
Definition of Rocks: The Philippines argued that these features are rocks, not
islands, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). Article 121 of UNCLOS defines an island as a naturally formed area of
land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide. An island can
sustain human habitation or economic life of its own. In contrast, a rock is a
naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at
high tide, but cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of its own.
Characteristics of Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal: The Philippines
presented evidence that Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal are
rocks, not islands, based on their physical characteristics. Scarborough Shoal is a
triangular-shaped feature with a total area of 150 square kilometers. It is a group
of rocks and coral reefs, which are not habitable by humans. Second Thomas
Shoal is a submerged feature with a total area of 13,000 square meters. It is also
uninhabitable by humans.

Implications of Being Rocks: The Philippines argued that if these features are
rocks, they do not generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
Under UNCLOS, a coastal state is entitled to claim an EEZ of 200 nautical miles
from its territorial sea baseline, which can include natural features such as
islands. If Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal are rocks, they cannot
generate an EEZ or continental shelf, and the waters surrounding them would be
considered part of the high seas. This would give other states the right to
exercise freedom of navigation and overflight in these waters.

China's Claims: The Philippines also challenged China's claims to these features,
arguing that China's claims were not based on historical facts and were
inconsistent with UNCLOS. China has claimed historic rights to the South China
Sea based on the "nine-dash line" map, which encompasses a large portion of
the sea, including Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal. However, the
Philippines argued that these claims are not supported by historical evidence
and are inconsistent with UNCLOS.

The Philippines argued that Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, and
other features in the South China Sea are rocks and not islands, and therefore
do not generate an EEZ or continental shelf. This argument has significant
implications for the maritime claims of other states, particularly China, and for
the exercise of freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea.

If these features are considered rocks, they would not generate an exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf, which would limit the maritime claims
of states in the region, including China. This would mean that China's claims to a
large part of the South China Sea, based on the so-called "nine-dash line" map,
would be invalid.
China’s violation of International law
China's actions in the West Philippine Sea have been viewed by many as a
violation of international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The UNCLOS provides for the rights of countries to
explore and exploit resources within their EEZs. China's claims in the West
Philippine Sea, including its nine-dash line claim, have been invalidated by the
Permanent Court of Arbitration's ruling in 2016. Despite this, China has continued
to assert its claims in the region, which has raised concerns over its compliance
with international law.

The Philippines has consistently and peacefully pursued the resolution of the
territorial dispute through diplomatic means, including arbitration under
UNCLOS. However, China has repeatedly ignored our calls for peaceful
negotiations and has refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings.
Instead, China has continued to assert its historical claims and pursue aggressive
actions in the West Philippine Sea.

There are several articles of international law that China has been accused of
breaching in its actions in the South China Sea. Some of these include:

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter: This article prohibits the threat or use of
force by states against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state. China has been using its military and maritime law enforcement vessels to
intimidate and coerce other states in the South China Sea, including the
Philippines and Vietnam.

Articles 56 and 57 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS): These articles set out the rights of coastal states to an exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, respectively, which can only be
limited by international law. China has been violating these articles by claiming
historic rights to the South China Sea based on the "nine-dash line" map, which is
not recognized under international law, and by occupying and building artificial
islands on features that are not entitled to an EEZ or continental shelf.

Article 121 of UNCLOS: This article defines an island as a naturally formed area of
land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide and can sustain
human habitation or economic life of its own. China has been breaching this
article by building artificial islands on features that are rocks or low-tide
elevations that do not meet the definition of an island under UNCLOS.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) ruling on the Enrica Lexie
case: In 2020, the ITLOS ruled that Italy had violated international law by not
respecting India's freedom of navigation in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The ruling affirmed the principle that coastal states have exclusive rights in their
EEZs and that other states can only exercise the freedom of navigation and
overflight in these zones with the consent of the coastal state. China has been
violating this principle by interfering with the freedom of navigation of other
states in the South China Sea, including by requiring prior notification and
authorization for innocent passage through its territorial sea.

Article 300 of UNCLOS: This article requires states to settle disputes related to the
interpretation or application of the convention by peaceful means, including
through negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. China has been accused of
breaching this article by rejecting the jurisdiction of international tribunals,
including the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) which ruled in 2016 that
China's claims to historic rights in the South China Sea based on the "nine-dash
line" map are not compatible with UNCLOS.

The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC): The
DOC is a non-binding agreement signed by China and the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2002, which calls for the parties to exercise
self-restraint and avoid actions that would escalate tensions in the South China
Sea. China has been violating the DOC by continuing to occupy and militarize
features in the South China Sea, despite its commitment to resolve disputes
through peaceful means.

These breaches of international law have led to tensions and conflicts in the
South China Sea, as neighboring states and the international community have
challenged China's claims and actions in the region. The Philippines and
Vietnam have taken their disputes with China to international tribunals and have
called for a multilateral approach to resolving conflicts in the South China Sea.
 1. a peaceful resolution. Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of
India, 15(2), 1-19.
2. Forbes, A. (2018). The South China Sea disputes: Why conflict is not inevitable. Journal
of Political Risk, 6(4), 19-33.
3. Guo, R. (2019). The South China Sea disputes: Historical and legal perspectives. Journal
of Contemporary China, 28(117), 466-480.
4. Hsu, H. (2020). The Philippines and the South China Sea dispute: Caught between a rock
and a hard place. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 25(4), 499-520.
5. Lee, K. H. (2021). The South China Sea disputes: Geopolitics, law, and the challenge of
conflict prevention. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 26(1), 1-26.
6. Li, M. (2019). China's South China Sea disputes with neighboring countries: A legal
analysis. Journal of East Asia and International Law, 12(1), 97-120.
7. Nguyen, H. T. (2020). The South China Sea dispute: Legal and political challenges.
Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 21(1), 101-119.
8. Rothwell, D. R. (2018). The South China Sea disputes and UNCLOS: Challenges to the
international legal order. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 5(3), 476-487.
9. Valencia, M. J. (2019). The South China Sea disputes: Opportunities and challenges for
ASEAN. Asian Journal of International Law, 9(2), 257-278.
10. Xue, G. (2018). The South China Sea disputes: Law, politics, and diplomacy. Ocean
Development & International Law, 49(3), 190-201.
Conclusion
The West Philippine Sea is a significant maritime territory that is rich in natural
resources and is crucial to the economic and national security of the Philippines.
However, the Philippines' rightful claim to this territory has been challenged by
China, which has been asserting its dominance over the area through various
actions, including militarization and aggressive territorial claims. The Philippines
has sought arbitration to resolve the dispute, and the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA) in 2016 has ruled in favor of the Philippines. This position paper
aims to present the arguments and evidence presented in the arbitration and
take a stance that condemns the acts of China in the West Philippine Sea.

The PCA's decision in 2016 rejected China's historic claims to the West Philippine
Sea and recognized the Philippines' sovereign rights over the area. The tribunal
also found that China's actions, including its construction of artificial islands and
its interference with Philippine fishing and oil exploration activities, violated the
Philippines' maritime rights and were incompatible with the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The tribunal further found that
China's actions have caused severe harm to the marine environment in the
West Philippine Sea, which has significant consequences for the ecological
balance and the livelihoods of those who depend on the sea.

China's actions in the West Philippine Sea are unjust and an abuse of power.
China's aggressive territorial claims and militarization of the area have created
instability in the region, which poses a threat to the peace and security of the
Philippines and other countries in the region. China's actions also violate the
principles of international law and the UNCLOS, which recognize the rights of
coastal states over their exclusive economic zones.

Furthermore, China's disregard for the PCA's ruling and its continued assertion of
its historic claims to the West Philippine Sea demonstrate its blatant disregard for
international law and its obligations as a member of the international
community. China's actions in the West Philippine Sea set a dangerous
precedent that undermines the rules-based international order and threatens
the stability of the region.

The Philippines has a rightful claim to the West Philippine Sea, and China's
actions in the area are unjust and an abuse of power. The evidence presented
in the arbitration of the PCA in 2016 clearly shows that China's actions have
violated international law, caused harm to the environment, and created
instability in the region. The international community must condemn China's
actions and work together to ensure that the principles of international law and
the UNCLOS are respected. The Philippines and other countries in the region
must stand together to protect their sovereign rights and promote peace and
stability in the region.

1. a peaceful resolution. Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of

India, 15(2), 1-19.
2. Forbes, A. (2018). The South China Sea disputes: Why conflict is not inevitable. Journal
of Political Risk, 6(4), 19-33.
3. Guo, R. (2019). The South China Sea disputes: Historical and legal perspectives. Journal
of Contemporary China, 28(117), 466-480.
4. Hsu, H. (2020). The Philippines and the South China Sea dispute: Caught between a rock
and a hard place. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 25(4), 499-520.
5. Lee, K. H. (2021). The South China Sea disputes: Geopolitics, law, and the challenge of
conflict prevention. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 26(1), 1-26.
6. Li, M. (2019). China's South China Sea disputes with neighboring countries: A legal
analysis. Journal of East Asia and International Law, 12(1), 97-120.
7. Nguyen, H. T. (2020). The South China Sea dispute: Legal and political challenges.
Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 21(1), 101-119.
8. Rothwell, D. R. (2018). The South China Sea disputes and UNCLOS: Challenges to the
international legal order. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 5(3), 476-487.
9. Valencia, M. J. (2019). The South China Sea disputes: Opportunities and challenges for
ASEAN. Asian Journal of International Law, 9(2), 257-278.
10. Xue, G. (2018). The South China Sea disputes: Law, politics, and diplomacy. Ocean
Development & International Law, 49(3), 190-201.