argumentative essay about west philippine sea brainly

• Subscribe Now

EXPLAINER: Philippines’ 5 arguments vs China

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

MANILA, Philippines – The Philippines’ case against China over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) boils down to 5 basic arguments. 

Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario outlined these claims on Tuesday, July 7, the first day of arguments at The Hague. (READ: Philippines vows to smash China’s strongest argument )

For the oral hearings that run until July 13, we’ve listed these 5 arguments, quoted verbatim from Del Rosario. 

Below each argument, we’ve added our own notes to explain things in a nutshell. We’ve also included links to other stories for further reading and reference.

The Philippines’ arguments revolve around the right to fish, as well as to exploit other resources, in the West Philippine Sea. (READ: PH vs China at The Hague: ‘80% of fish’ at stake )

This right is based on the so-called Constitution for the Oceans, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Under UNCLOS, a coastal state has the exclusive right to fish within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), an area 200 nautical miles from the coastal state’s baselines or edges. 

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.  

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. (READ: Top Philippine judge uses Chinese maps vs China ) 

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.” 

The Philippines, however, asserts that the 9-dash line is baseless under UNCLOS. This UN convention allows an EEZ, not a 9-dash line. (READ: No such thing as 9-dash line – US envoy )

3. Rocks vs islands  

ARGUMENT : “Third, that the various maritime features relied upon by China as a basis upon which to assert its claims in the 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.” 

EXPLANATION : Under UNCLOS, habitable islands can generate a 200-nautical-mile EEZ. Rocks cannot.  

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 ) 

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 breached the Convention by interfering with the Philippines’ exercise of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction.” 

EXPLANATION : China prevents Filipinos from fishing in the West Philippine Sea. UNCLOS, on the other hand, gives Filipinos the exclusive rights to fish within the Philippines’ EEZ in the disputed waters. (READ: PH fisherfolk: Living with Chinese coast guard’s hostility ) 

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.”

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. (READ: PH: China ‘irreversibly damaged’ environment ) 

China, for its part, refuses to answer the Philippines’ arguments in arbitration proceedings. It has instead published a position paper debunking the Philippines’ claims. 

In the end, the Philippines says, the case at The Hague is set to provide a long-term solution to the sea dispute. (READ: FULL TEXT: The Philippines’ opening salvo at The Hague )

For Del Rosario, UNCLOS provisions “allow the weak to challenge the powerful on an equal footing, confident in the conviction that principles trump power; that law triumphs over force; and that right prevails over might.” – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Paterno R. Esmaquel II

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}.

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Download Free PDF

West Philippine Sea Dispute: An Essay

Related papers

International Journal of Law Management & Humanities , 2023

The South China Sea dispute involves overlapping of territorial claims and maritime conflicts among nations like China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. Central to this intricate issue is the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an international treaty governing the rights and responsibilities of States concerning global ocean use UNCLOS regulating maritime jurisdictions, defining territorial waters, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and continental shelf. Beyond regional stability, the South China Sea dispute carries global implications due to its impact on trade routes, valuable resources, and strategic alliances. The interplay between the South China Sea dispute and UNCLOS underscores the tension between territorial claims and international legal principles. A nuanced understanding of these complexities is essential for maintaining stability, upholding legal norms, and facilitating peaceful resolutions within the intricate landscape of maritime geopolitics. This article discussed in brief the different concepts under the UNCLOS 1982, and the violation of the provisions of the convention by the China and other states in South China Sea for their own interest in the sea.

Since 2000, the actions as well as articulations by the stakeholders in the South China Sea (SCS), by those directly involved (claimants) and some with strategic stakes (indirectly), have become particularly assertive. This has led to rising tensions and the serial/frequent occurrences of incidents of confrontationist nature are symbolic of deteriorating regional security environment. The SCS disputes are long-standing with two interesting mixes. Firstly, the combination of history, cartography, and, varying interpretations of doctrines and norms for inter-state delimitation by each claimant. The second mix is the complex web of overlapping, intersecting and intermeshed nature of these claims with varying degrees of sovereignty, territoriality and maritime entitlement implications. This main issues examined are some salient aspects of extant legal framework for deconstructing the sovereignty, territoriality and sovereign rights through the perspective of codified/treaty law and the case law. This paper (pre-publication draft with a few minor typos) forms a chapter of recent;y published edited volume titled "Maritime Dynamics in the Indo-Pacific".

African Journal of Law and Criminology, 2018

Maritime zones are areas of the sea for which international law prescribes spatial limits. While customary international law recognises only the territorial sea and high seas as maritime zones, modern international law recognises other maritime zones which reflect the modern uses of the sea. The various maritime zones recognised under modern international law are clearly delineated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 which regulates the rights and duties of Coastal States in the zones. This research appraises the rights and duties of Coastal States under UNCLOS 1982. It is argued that the ocean regime established under UNCLOS is regulated to the extent that the sovereign rights and obligations of Coastal States in the different maritime zones and the limits of those rights are clearly defined so as to ensure international peace and order. This research which adopts analytical research methodology posits that the effectiveness of UNCLOS as the constitution of the sea will depend to a large extent on the degree of compliance by States-Parties to the convention. Given that UNCLOS was adopted in 1982, there are new challenges confronting Coastal States including ocean noise, oceans and climate change, piracy and armed robbery at sea which were not contemplated by UNCLOS. It is recommended that the international community must rise to the occasion by setting machinery in motion for the adoption of additional treaties to supplement the inadequacies of UNCLOS so as to tackle these current challenges.

Introduction-This is a proposition for a durable legal order to underpin a collective regional maritime security cooperation system for the seas of the Central Indo-Pacific, taking into account the South China Sea disputes situation. Specifically, this is about the prompt implementation of UNCLOS Part IX on enclosed and semi-enclosed seas as the legal and scientific framework for regional ocean governance in the Central Indo-Pacific addressing non-traditional maritime security concerns. It is further herewith proposed for the ASEAN to take up a leadership and ownership role in this overall regional collective and cooperative undertaking inasmuch as the seas of ASEAN are the predominating sea area with central impacts on maritime connectivity for AEC 2015. Moreover, the contentious regional maritime disputes situation is centered on the South China Sea, specifically the Spratlys archipelago, which is the ASEAN front yard with China.

I: The 1982 UNCLOS The 1982 UNCLOS (the Convention) was the latest development and realization of the universal international law regulating the oceans in the whole world. It was one of the highest achievements of the UN and states around the world which were able to agree on such a high degree of idealism and not that easy implementation of its provisions. The beginning of the era of the modern world in the sixteenth century saw the expansion of Europe into the Americas and subsequent development of the world system in which Europe became the center of the new world. Attempts were made at that time in order to regulate and maintenance some kind of a new peace and order covering the areas that include major oceans, seas, and land. The legal models and arrangements in the fifteenth century through the end of the eighteenth century in the Atlantic world suggest a different shape and meaning of global interconnectedness in this period. The world stretching from the Iberian Americas, to Christian Europe, coastal and Islamic Africa, and into the vast Indian Ocean world formed part of a single international legal regime. Broad structural similarities in the ways that power and identity were defined in the institutional order made these culturally diverse regions mutually intelligible for travelers and traders, thereby undergirding global economic interconnections (Benton 2002, 79). Thus, the 1982 Convention was not the first attempt of a single international legal regime. But the significant point is its inception and development was not done or dreamt by the major world powers in the West like in the past history. Interestingly, this time it was the majority of non-West and less advanced states and countries especially from African, Caribbean and archipelagic areas, which do not represent the maritime interests of the world, which were the first ratifies of the Convention and took part to move the Convention to its full realization (Matics 1994,129). The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) thus was historically the most ambitious attempt ever made at global law reform. It aims at the political behavior of member states regarding the conduct for the seas (Gold 1992, 85). Thus, the 1982 Convention was aptly described as the " Constitution for the international community in the field of maritime affairs " (Kriangsak 1992).

Asian Social Science, 2015

Lex Portus, 2022

The article examines the effeteness of UNCLOS and espouses on why it is not a De Jure legally binding agreement but a De facto non-binding agreement. The uncertainty in the law of the sea would inevitably grow and increasingly State practice, across geographies, may well continue to diverge from the traditional views of the law. Given that states are increasingly under the influence of domestic politics and racial tensions, divergence per se is inevitable, and the dire need of the hour is for the comity of nations to get their act together, vis a vis, re-examining the UNCLOS agreement and to thereafter usher in an agreement that would work. The need to rewrite would require much effort and the cooperation of all the states and indubitably, it would call for egalitarian approaches. The keywords: law of the seas, Constitution of the Seas, maritime jurisprudence, the one ocean concept, the binding nature, interpretations of UNCLOS, International Law, USA, China. ISSN 2524-101X eISSN 26...

The first international conference on new researches in management, law, humanities and entrepreneurship, 2024

The main principles of international maritime law focus on the legal framework governing maritime division and the legal principles related to maritime resources. This model is essential for addressing current challenges such as protecting marine diversity, managing marine plastic pollution, and dealing with the complexities of the Arctic region and climate change effects on marine ecosystems. The development of methods in the law of the sea is constantly evolving and adapting to address new issues. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a crucial international treaty in this area, but there are concerns about its ability to handle the risks posed by climate change. Pacific island nations have taken a significant step by offering the UN a satellite station for their territorial waters to strengthen their rights under UNCLOS and ensure territorial integrity in disputed claims.

Journal of Music Theory, 2013

Analecta Cracoviensia

Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 2002

Issues in Syllabus Design, 2018

The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy, 2019

Revista «Política exterior», 35 / 201 (junio 2021) 138-145, www.politicaexterior.com

Theory Into Practice, 1975

spectre journal, 2023

Kind en adolescent Praktijk, 2018

Biochemistry, 2005

Brazilian Journal of Case Reports

Pan African Medical Journal, 2013

Lecture notes in civil engineering, 2020

International Journal of Molecular Medicine, 2006

Information and Computation, 1995

Asian Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2010

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024