By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo
China’s recent protest against the Philippines’ claim for an extended continental shelf (ECS) in the West Philippine Sea (WPS) represents yet another episode of Beijing’s blatant disregard for international law. This protest, articulated in a June 18 communication to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, underscores China’s continuing attempts to unilaterally impose its will over vast swaths of the South China Sea, despite clear international legal precedents that invalidate its claims.
The Philippines’ claim is anchored firmly in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which China itself has ratified. According to UNCLOS, a country’s continental shelf extends to the outer edge of the continental margin or up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines, with the potential to extend up to 350 nautical miles if geological and tectonic data support such a claim. The Philippines has meticulously gathered and presented such data, demonstrating that the West Palawan Region (WPR) is a natural prolongation of its land territory, thus qualifying it for an ECS beyond the standard 200 nautical miles.
In stark contrast, China’s protest is rooted in a sweeping assertion of “indisputable sovereignty” over the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands (referred to as Nanhai Zhudao by China). However, this assertion is based on the infamous nine-dash line, a demarcation that the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague unequivocally invalidated in its landmark 2016 ruling. The PCA found no legal basis for China’s historical claims, a decision that China has stubbornly refused to accept, choosing instead to continue its aggressive and unlawful expansionist activities.
China’s position is further weakened by its failure to provide any credible legal justification that aligns with established international norms. The concept of “historic rights,” as China frequently cites, does not supersede the provisions of UNCLOS, which was designed to provide a clear and comprehensive legal framework for maritime entitlements and dispute resolution. The 2016 PCA ruling reinforced this by rejecting China’s historical claims as incompatible with UNCLOS, to which China is a signatory.
Moreover, China’s call for the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (UN CLCS) to dismiss the Philippines’ submission is not only baseless but also hypocritical. It ignores the fact that the UN CLCS is an impartial body tasked with evaluating scientific and technical data to determine the legitimacy of continental shelf claims, irrespective of the geopolitical disputes surrounding them.
A comparative analysis of the Philippines’ and China’s claims reveals a stark contrast in adherence to international law. The Philippines’ submission to the UN CLCS is a methodical, legally sound process rooted in scientific evidence and in full compliance with UNCLOS provisions. It also demonstrates a willingness to engage in dialogue and cooperation with neighboring states like Vietnam and Malaysia, which have overlapping claims, thereby embodying the spirit of peaceful resolution and multilateralism.
China, on the other hand, continues to assert its claims through coercion and force. Its aggressive actions, such as the recent ramming of Philippine boats near Ayungin Shoal, are not only illegal but also undermine regional stability and international order. These actions are clear violations of the principles of peaceful coexistence and respect for sovereign rights, principles enshrined in the UN Charter and numerous international agreements.
Precedents in international law, such as the 1982 ICJ judgment in the Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf case and the 2009 Bangladesh/Myanmar maritime boundary dispute resolution by the ITLOS, underscore the importance of geological and geomorphological evidence in determining continental shelf entitlements. These cases highlight that natural prolongation, not arbitrary historical claims, is the key criterion in establishing continental shelf boundaries.
In conclusion, the Philippines’ ECS claim stands on firm legal ground, bolstered by scientific data and adherence to UNCLOS. China’s protest, lacking both legal merit and moral high ground, is a desperate attempt to subvert international law to its advantage. The international community must stand firm in upholding the rules-based order and reject any attempts by China to undermine the principles of UNCLOS and the sovereign rights of coastal states. The integrity of international maritime law and the stability of the South China Sea region depend on it.
- Andres Heralds DoJ’s Transformative Justice
- Sailing to New Horizons: PEZA Sets Ambitious PHP250-B Approval Target for 2024
- Panga’s Bold Vision: The Paradigm Shift of Iwahig Mega Economic Zone
- Panga’s Pragmatic Approach to Sino-Philippine Investments
- The Shadow Over Manila
- Shadow of the Red Notice: Remulla hunts down Teves
- Frozen Enigma: NBI Bacolod’s Tussle with Darkness
- Quiboloy’s Supreme Court Shenanigans: A Pathetic Attempt to Dodge Justice
KWEBA ni BAROK 
Leave a comment