The Permanent Court of
Arbitration based in The Hague continued the oral arguments on the merits of
the case filed by Manila seeking clarification of its territorial entitlements
in the West Philippine Sea and contesting Beijing’s massive claims, which cover
the coasts of smaller neighbors.
Deputy presidential
spokesperson Abigail Valte, quoting Andrew Loewenstein, one of the counsels
representing the Philippines, said China’s claim was “hopeless and
indefensible.”
A bulletin from The
Hague said Loewenstein emphasized there was no basis for China to claim
historical rights and that its artificial islands could not be used as
reference points for what it claimed as its territories in disputed waters.
The Philippines also
said China’s construction activities have eaten into parts of Philippine
territory, deprived Filipinos of fishing rights and destroyed marine resources.
The bulletin also cited
professor Philippe Sands’ making a presentation of China’s construction
activities that he stressed did not give the Asian power additional
entitlements.
Sands argued that
Mischief (Panganiban) Reef, Second Thomas (Ayungin) Shoal, Subi (Zamora) Reef,
Mckennan Reef and Gaven (Burgos) Reef were all low tide elevations under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and, as such, were not
entitled to their own territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental
shelf, the bulletin read.
“Sands discussed China’s
interference with the Philippines’ exercise of sovereign rights under the
UNCLOS with respect to living and non-living resources in the exclusive
economic zone,” the bulletin, relayed by Valte to reporters, said.
“Sands gave as examples
several incidents involving service contracts given by the Department of Energy
wherein the private companies were prevented from exploration,” the bulletin
read.
“In addition, the
fishing ban mandated by China’s Ministry of Agriculture covering even areas in
the Philippines’ EEZ was also discussed,” it added.
Another counsel for the
Philippines, Lawrence Martin, argued that based on the Mandarin, Spanish and
English translations of Article 121 of UNCLOS, features classified as rocks
could not have maritime entitlements despite China’s building structures over
them, the bulletin read.
Martin also stressed
that under UNCLOS, a feature can only be considered an island if it is capable
of sustaining human habitation and economic life.
In the afternoon
session, the principal counsel for the Philippines, Paul Reichler, returned to
the floor to prove to the tribunal that no civilian settlements had ever been
established on features in the Spratly island group.
“There can only be one
reason why this is the case, as the features themselves are not capable of
sustaining human habitation,” the bulletin stated, quoting Reichler.
Valte said the
Philippines’ arguments centered on how China’s maritime claim – as embodied in
its so-called nine-dash line – has been depriving Filipinos of fishing and
exploration rights.
China’s massive land
reclamation, construction activities and apparent militarization in disputed
waters are believed to be intended to extend or expand the Asian giant’s
exclusive economic zone based on UNCLOS to cover even the Philippines’ internal
waters. Under UNCLOS, countries are entitled to a 200-nautical mile EEZ from
the nearest land features within their territories.
The bulletin cited
Martin’s presenting various testimonies from Filipino fishermen to prove
China’s interference in their traditional fishing activities at Bajo de
Masinloc or Scarborough Shoal in the West Philippine Sea. Bajo de Masinloc is
also locally called Panatag Shoal.
“A map from 1784 was
presented to prove that Bajo de Masinloc has always been part of the
Philippines,” it added.
Loewenstein closed the
afternoon session by presenting satellite images of various installations
constructed by China on Mischief (Panganiban) Reef, among others.
“A video simulation was
also shown to the tribunal to demonstrate how a cutter suction dredger destroys
the sea bed and transfers sand to a pre-selected area, a machine used by China
in its construction activities,” the bulletin further read.
“Loewenstein argued
further that by engaging in these activities, China has violated the sovereign
rights of the Philippines with regard to living and non-living resources in its
EEZ and continental shelf,” it added.
As stated by Sands,
Valte said China’s violations were “flagrant and persistent” and that “they
continue today” despite protests from the Philippines.
On Tuesday, the
country’s legal team discussed the nature of China’s claim of historic rights,
with Reichler pointing out how these purported historic rights, supposedly
derived from UNCLOS, “in fact do not exist under the provisions of the convention.”
Loewenstein argued that
even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a claim of historic rights could
exist after the UNCLOS, China nonetheless failed to satisfy the requirements to
establish such claim, namely: a continuous exercise of exclusive control for a
long period of time over a specific area.
Loewenstein presented
eight maps, the first of which dates back to the Ming Dynasty, to show that
China’s territory did not include those encompassed by its so-called nine-dash
line.
In Beijing, Chinese
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters the hearing in The Hague was
a provocation under the guise of law as he reasserted China’s “indisputable”
sovereignty over South China Sea.
“The Philippines’
unilateral initiation and obstinate pushing forward of the South China Sea
arbitration is a political provocation under the cloak of law,” Hong said.
“It is in essence not an
effort to settle disputes but an attempt to negate China’s territorial
sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea,” Hong
added.
Post a Comment