Scarborough Issues

Scarborough issues Both the Philippines and china continue to assert sovereignty over the same area in the South China Sea. We thitherfore pack an transnational dispute, an element unavoidable before one sight go to an international court. We want to lenify the dispute through the judicial resolution provision in the join Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) unsharedly China does non. That is the concord we are in. Suppose, however, that China eventually agrees to go to court. Can the Unclos be the fount of resolution?If we appeal to the convention, will we be contradicting ourselves, as some take away, by laying claim to an area which is right(prenominal) the geographical limits of Philippine dominion as delineated in the Treaty of capital of France? Indeed, the Treaty of Paris is a good assumeing point. But the treaty is an 1890 document drafted and entered into on the basis of the lowstanding of what mari meter laws were at that time and their limit ations. At that time the division of the law of waters was only between the territorial reserve ocean and the high seas. It said nothing beyond territorial waters.However, more territorial divisions beyond territorial waters have developed since 1890. The territorial sea, as originally conceived, was the body of water which a coastal state could wield with the current range of cannons, a rather short distance. This was later grow to the present 12 nautical miles. Within the territorial sea a coastal state could exercise certain restricted rights. Beyond the territorial sea were the high seas which were open to use and exploration by all. Things have changed radically since the early development of international law. The division into territorial sea and high seas is still there.But there have now come to be recognize certain zones of legal power beyond the territorial waters. These developments are operational and resource-oriented and have come to threaten those who rely on traditional ocean rules. Thus, when you read of 22 Chinese vessels preventing Filipino vessels from entering the area or so Scarborough Shoal, this is the puzzle we want the Unclos to work out. The Unclos is not just a codification of customary international law but overly goes beyond traditionally certain rules. What are the new developments? First of all, we have to think of baselines.The Unclos allows states to draw baselines on the low water mark surrounding a coastal state. The baselines can either follow the indentations of the coast or they can be serial lines drawn from point to point. Straight baselines are allowed in archipelagos like the Philippines. future(a) the Unclos, we drew our baselines through the adoption of Republic Act 9522 modifying an earlier law. The baselines are important because the various zonal jurisdictions begin from there. Inward from the baselines are the indwelling waters over which a state exercises the same kind of jurisdiction it has over land.Outward from the baselines are 12 nautical miles of territorial sea. This is still traditional international law. But recently there have been recognized, beyond the territorial sea and within the high seas, new zones of restrain jurisdiction. These new zones of limited jurisdiction are the contiguous zone (24 nautical miles), liquid ecstasy frugal zone (200 nautical miles), and the continental shelf. These are covered by perplex rules that are under the Unclos. In some areas there has also been recognized an exclusive fish zone (200 nautical miles). The new zones, especially the exclusive economic zones of neighboring states, can overlap.The rules for resolving overlapping jurisdictions are also fix in the Unclos. The Philippines has been asking China to go to court to resolve issues that have arisen in the Scarborough area. We also have issues with other neighboring states. These withal will eventually have to be resolved through the Unclos. The problem we have wit h China is not just about waters but also about land area. A states claim to any portion of the sea begins from its world-wide jurisdiction. We have conflicting terrestrial jurisdiction with China. We are claiming land areas that are outside the lines drawn by the Treaty of Paris.The scrap for us is to be able to justify our claims under the present state of international law. Merely citing the shape or date stamp of old maps will not settle the issues. The Philippines will not ferocity its claim simply on the basis of the lines of the 1890 Treaty of Paris. We should not give birth our claims simply on the basis of old maps. There is new international law jurisprudence on conflicting land claims which have to be studied to see how applicable it is to the current conflicting claims. This is a challenge to the Philippine government. Is solidifying our claim to terrestrial area essential to engaging our maritime claims?Under RA 9522 we reasserted our claim to a regime of islands outside the Philippine archipelago. Islands, according to the Unclos, also have their maritime jurisdiction. (I am not sure if Scarborough Shoal qualifies as an island under Unclos. ) But the waters there are 120 nautical miles off the Zambales mainland, or within our exclusive economic zone. That is one basis of our claim, a good point to start from. P. S. Incidentally, Dr. Benito Legarda Jr. corrected me when I said in a front column that Bajo de Masinloc means Below Masinloc. He is right. I have found since then that Bajo is the old form of bajio which means shoal.