By Ambassador Domingo P. Nolasco
This is in response to the article entitled, “Consultation and negotiation are the only way out over the issue of South China between China and the Philippines,” written by Ambassador Jiang Yu, Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to Albania.
As the Non-Resident Ambassador to Albania, it behooves me to clarify the issues raised by Ambassador Jiang on the West Philippine Sea/ South China Sea. First, the core issue of the dispute between the Philippines and China is China’s claim of indisputable sovereignty over nearly the entire South China Sea, encompassing 85.7% of the entire area represented by China’s nine-dash line. Another core issue is China’s unilateral and provocative actions on the ground to change the status quo to impose its nine-dash claim on other countries including the Philippines. In recent years, China has started massive island building activities in the South China Sea destructing the marine environment, has harassed small Filipino fishermen and has imposed fishing ban in some parts of the South China Sea.
Second, the Philippines’ case against China in the Arbitral Tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration is neither an act of aggression nor an intent to antagonize a big country such as China. On the contrary, the Philippines chose a peaceful, non-violent and rules-based means in response to China’s unlawful and aggressive actions in the South China Sea. Arbitration is not an unfriendly act.
Article 33 (1) of the UN Charter specifically mentions arbitration and judicial settlement as mechanisms to settle disputes. In 1982, the UN General Assembly adopted the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes Between States which declared that recourse to the judicial settlement of disputes “should not be considered an unfriendly act between States.”
Third, the Philippines decided to file the case in the Arbitral Tribunal because for more than two decades of trying to engage China in bilateral discussions and consultations to peacefully resolve the maritime dispute, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), China has repeatedly insisted its indisputable sovereignty in the area. The Philippines turned to arbitration to provide all parties a durable and rules-based solution to the dispute.
Fourth, the Philippines agrees with China that the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) is an important document between ASEAN and China. The DOC does not limit the Philippines from seeking other dispute-settlement mechanisms including arbitration. Arbitration is widely recognized as a peaceful means of resolving disputes and does not violate the Philippines’ commitment to the DOC. The DOC does not exclude recourse to dispute settlement mechanisms under the UNCLOS. The Arbitral tribunal has made it clear that the DOC does not specify that negotiations shall be the exclusive form of settlement of dispute settlement mechanisms provided in the Convention.
Fifth, the Philippines is not asking the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on the merits of territorial sovereignty of the South China Sea. The Philippines is merely asking the Tribunal to clarify maritime entitlements under the UNCLOS.
The Philippines puts a high premium on international rule of law as the bedrock of peace, order and stability in the world. As a responsible member of the world community, the Philippines is fully committed to abide by the decision of the Tribunal and hopes that China will do the same.
Finally, the decisions by the Arbitral tribunal are binding and considered source of international law, particularly as they relate to interpretations of international agreements and conventions such as the UNCLOS. In this particular case, the award expected is legally binding on all parties and will provide a sound basis for moving forward to a new beginning of a rules based regime in the South China Sea.
The Philippines seeks the support of peace-loving nations like Albania for the rule of law to prevail in all parts of the world.
