A Legal Blunder: China’s Own Argument Supports the Philippine Claim in the West Philippine Sea

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

The swirling dispute over the West Philippine Sea has taken an unexpected turn. Former Philippine Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio’s recent revelation that China, through its invocation of the Treaty of Washington, may have inadvertently bolstered Manila’s territorial claims is nothing short of a geopolitical game-changer. This assertion, underpinned by both historical and legal precedents, demands a thorough examination.

Carpio’s detailed analysis highlights a crucial and often overlooked aspect of the West Philippine Sea dispute: the Treaty of Washington of 1900. This treaty, which amended the 1898 Treaty of Paris, delineated the transfer of Spanish territories to the United States, including the Philippines. The Treaty of Washington explicitly ceded to the US “any and all islands belonging to the Philippine archipelago, lying outside the lines of the Treaty of Paris.” This clause, as Carpio astutely points out, includes the contested areas within the West Philippine Sea. Thus, by recognizing this treaty, China inadvertently affirms the Philippines’ sovereignty over these disputed waters.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s invocation of this treaty during his keynote speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue marks a watershed moment. As Carpio rightly asserts, this is a pivotal point in the Philippines’ narrative, both factually and legally. Marcos Jr.’s declaration that “the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States crystallized our islands into a cohesive whole” and that the Treaty of Washington “clarified the extent of our sovereignty” resonates with historical accuracy and legal fortitude.

From a historical perspective, Spanish-era maps further bolster the Philippines’ claims. These maps clearly delineate features such as the Scarborough Shoal and the Spratlys as integral parts of the Philippine territory. The consistency of these historical documents with the stipulations of the Treaty of Washington provides an irrefutable narrative that these features have always been under Philippine sovereignty.

China’s actions, however, are not merely a misinterpretation but a continuation of an aggressive and unlawful stance in the region. The recent harassment by the China Coast Guard (CCG) of Philippine vessels and personnel in the West Philippine Sea, including the interception of food supplies and the obstruction of medical evacuations, underscores a pattern of belligerence that cannot be ignored. These acts are not only provocative but also violate international norms and the principles of humanitarian conduct.

Rep. Robert Ace Barbers’ condemnation of these actions as “barbaric” is not an overstatement. The brazen attempts by the CCG to seize airdropped supplies and block evacuation efforts pose significant threats to the lives of Filipino soldiers and constitute a direct challenge to Philippine sovereignty. Such aggressive maneuvers, documented and witnessed by the international community, demand a robust response.

Historically, similar aggressive postures have led to broader conflicts. The world has witnessed how unchecked territorial ambitions can spiral into full-scale confrontations, as seen in the lead-up to World War II with the invasions of Manchuria and the Sudetenland. Allowing China’s actions to go unchallenged sets a dangerous precedent, emboldening further acts of aggression not only in Southeast Asia but globally.

The Philippines must leverage all available legal avenues to address these transgressions. Filing criminal complaints before international bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) should be a priority. Diplomatic protests, while necessary, must be complemented by legal actions to hold China accountable for its violations.

At the same time, the international community has a moral and legal obligation to support the Philippines. The United Nations, ASEAN, and other global institutions must condemn China’s actions unequivocally and uphold international law. Failure to do so undermines the very principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that these bodies are meant to protect.

Diplomacy remains the cornerstone of resolving this complex dispute. Peaceful negotiations, backed by a firm adherence to historical and legal precedents, offer the only sustainable solution. The Philippines and China must engage in dialogues, perhaps mediated by neutral international parties, to de-escalate tensions and seek mutually acceptable resolutions.

In conclusion, Carpio’s revelations underscore a critical juncture in the West Philippine Sea dispute. The legal and historical precedents, now bolstered by China’s inadvertent admission, place the Philippines in a strong position to assert its claims. The path forward requires a combination of diplomatic engagement, legal action, and unwavering support from the international community to ensure peace and stability in the region. As we navigate these turbulent waters, let us not forget that upholding justice and international law is paramount in our quest for a harmonious and peaceful world.