Source: Global Times
[Global Times reporter Guo Yuandan] On the 15th, the Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the Philippine government had submitted its claim to the United Nations for the expansion of the continental shelf in the South China Sea. Experts interviewed by the Global Times said that the Philippines has been plotting this move for a long time, and China has already prepared for it. In addition to expressing its solemn position, China will also take corresponding countermeasures according to actual needs.
The picture shows President Marcos of the Philippines
According to the Philippine News Agency and other media reports, the Philippines formally submitted the document on the right to extend the continental shelf of the "West Palawan Region" in the South China Sea to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on the 15th, requesting that the 200 mile exclusive economic zone be extended to 350 miles. The Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed that the submission was approved by President Marcos. The working group led by the National Bureau of Surveying, Mapping and Resource Information of the Philippines spent 15 years collecting and processing the data needed to submit documents.
"In accordance with the relevant provisions of the continental shelf of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the continental shelf of coastal countries can be extended beyond 200 nautical miles of the territorial sea baseline under certain conditions. The Philippines is mainly based on this article to submit the above application." Dr. Ding Duo, deputy director of the Institute of Marine Law and Policy of the South China Sea Research Institute, said in an interview with the Global Times on the 16th, At present, the specific content of the application has not been released, but according to the information of the Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the so-called "outer continental shelf in the South China Sea" in the West Palawan region overlaps with the sea areas under China's jurisdiction. In case of dispute, according to the rules of procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the relevant application will not be considered or put on hold.
Ding Duo further analyzed that the Philippines had been planning this move for a long time and had received support from the United States. The main purpose of the Philippines is to substantiate the illegal award of the so-called "South China Sea arbitration case" by proposing a submission of the outer continental shelf, and at the same time, to induce individual countries to attack and discredit China's policies and positions in the South China Sea on international multilateral occasions and in the international public opinion arena. Considering that the Philippines has also illegally occupied 8 islands and reefs in China's Nansha Islands, and recently created incidents in Xianbin Reef, Tiexian Reef and other places, the Philippines is playing the card of outer continental shelf, which is also an attempt to whitewash, solidify and even expand its illegal gains in the South China Sea.
In addition, foreign media generally noticed that the 15th was the day when China's Provisions on Administrative Law Enforcement Procedures for Maritime Police Agencies came into force. Previously, the Philippine media and western media ignored the provisions of the new regulations that "administrative law enforcement should be based on facts and the law as the yardstick" in their reports, aimed at hyping the relevant provisions that foreigners suspected of violating the exit and entry management can be detained and reviewed, and incited confrontation. According to Reuters, the commander in chief of the Philippine Armed Forces, Brauna, said on the 14th that the Philippine military told its fishermen to "not be afraid to continue to carry out normal fishing activities in the exclusive economic zone".
In this regard, Ding Duo said that the Philippines continued to hype China's Regulations on Administrative Law Enforcement Procedures for Maritime Police Agencies, reflecting its guilty conscience and self hyped desire to perform. "No matter how misleading, misinterpreting and discrediting the new regulations of the Chinese Coast Guard by the Philippines in the international public opinion, the Chinese Coast Guard will, as always, take effective and professional measures to safeguard and enforce the rights of the Philippines in the South China Sea, and firmly safeguard China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights."
Extended Reading
Is the Philippines attempting to repeat its old tricks in the South China Sea?
Since Little Marcos came to power, the Philippines has constantly provoked and caused troubles in Huangyan Island, Ren'ai Reef, Tiexian Reef, Xianbin Reef and other places. The United States and some other western countries have carried out "joint air and sea patrols" and military exercises with the Philippines from time to time, hyped the illegal award of the South China Sea arbitration case in a high profile, and supported the Philippines in its illegal claims and infringement challenges.
At the same time, the Philippines used the "cognitive warfare" technique to stir up issues, confuse right and wrong, distort black and white, deliberately distort China's South China Sea policy, and maliciously discredit China's international image.
What's more, the Philippines is also trying to abuse the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) again to make political blackmail against China in the guise of law on the South China Sea issue. Since September last year, high-level officials such as the Philippine National Security Council, the General Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of Justice have constantly threatened to re initiate international arbitration against China on issues related to the so-called "protection of the marine environment in the South China Sea", and also claimed that the so-called "prosecution" evidence preparation could be completed within a few weeks.
In response to the political and legal provocations of the Philippines, China will inevitably take strong countermeasures and countermeasures. The Philippines' adventure is doomed to be unsuccessful, and will not have any substantive impact on China's legal claims in the South China Sea and its legal actions to safeguard territorial sovereignty and maritime rights. However, it may be used by foreign forces with ulterior motives, further squeezing the political space for China and the Philippines to properly deal with controversial issues, and disrupting the pace of maritime cooperation and rule building, And undermine peace and stability in the South China Sea.
Video screenshot of the Chinese coast guard ship driving away Philippine ships illegally entering China's Ren'ai Reef
What is the core of the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines?
Among the maritime governance issues around China, the South China Sea issue is unique and complex. Essentially, it is a territorial and maritime dispute left over by history, but to a large extent, it is bound into the geopolitical competition of major powers.
In this context, although the dispute has been well managed as a whole, some differences and frictions still occur from time to time, and the complexity and vulnerability of the situation are obvious.
The South China Sea issue arose from the illegal occupation of some islands and reefs in China's Nansha Islands by the relevant parties. The development of international maritime law has led to a large overlap of maritime claims of some parties. This is the root of the dispute between China and the countries concerned over sovereignty, oil rights, fishing rights, law enforcement and jurisdiction in the South China Sea. Despite the changing regional and international situation, the core of the South China Sea issue has remained unchanged, namely, the territorial disputes over islands and reefs and maritime delimitation disputes.
China and the Philippines face each other across the sea and have close exchanges. There was no dispute about territorial and maritime delimitation. Since the 1970s, the Philippines has illegally occupied some islands and reefs in the Nansha Islands. In August and September 1970, the Philippines illegally occupied Mahuan Island and Feixin Island; In April 1971, the Philippines illegally occupied Nanyao Island and Zhongye Island; In July 1971, the Philippines illegally occupied Xiyue Island and Beizi Island; In March 1978 and July 1980, the Philippines illegally occupied Double Yellow Sandbanks and Commanding Reef. As a result, the Philippines has created the issue of China and the Philippines on some islands and reefs in the Nansha Islands.
In the South China Sea, China's land territory coast is opposite to the Philippines' land territory coast, less than 400 nautical miles away. With the development of the international law of the sea, the maritime rights and interests claimed by the two countries in the South China Sea overlap, which also leads to maritime delimitation disputes.
Since then, the Philippines has intensified the dispute, harassed the normal production and operation of Chinese fishing vessels, and brutally treated Chinese fishermen. According to incomplete statistics, from 1989 to 2015, there were 97 incidents of Philippine illegal violations of the safety of Chinese fishermen's lives and property in the waters of the Nansha Islands, including 8 shootings, 34 robberies, 40 arrests and 15 pursuits; A total of nearly 200 Chinese fishing boats and nearly 1000 fishermen were involved. For example, on April 27, 2006, the Philippine armed fishing boat invaded the southern shoal area of China's Nansha Islands and directly fired at the bridge of the Chinese fishing boat "Qiongqionghai 03012", killing four Chinese fishermen on the spot.
What is the South China Sea international arbitration that the Philippines may bring?
As with the unilateral South China Sea arbitration case in 2013, the Philippines may also invoke the Convention, including Annex VII, to initiate new international arbitration against China.
According to the provisions of the Convention, States parties can choose between four different dispute settlement methods: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Annex VII arbitration and Annex VIII special arbitration to the Convention. Annex VII Arbitration is a means of compulsory dispute settlement under Part XV of the Convention.
From the procedural point of view, the "mandatory" of Annex VII arbitration is reflected in that the initiation of arbitration does not require a special agreement between the parties to the dispute in advance or after the event. As long as one party to the dispute sends a notice of arbitration to the other party as required, the arbitration procedure can be initiated without the express or implied consent of the other party.
The "compulsory" arbitration in Annex VII also means the unilateral nature of the arbitration procedure, which is reflected in two aspects: first, when one party does not respond to the lawsuit, the applicant can request the arbitration tribunal to continue the procedure and make an award, and the non response of one party does not hinder the progress of the procedure. Secondly, if the parties to the dispute cannot agree on the appointment of the remaining three arbitrators of the arbitral tribunal, either party may request the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to make such an appointment and select the President of the arbitral tribunal from among them.
The unilateral nature of the initiation and promotion of arbitration procedures in Annex VII to a certain extent subverts the basic principles of traditional arbitration. When the parties to a dispute disagree or fail to reach an agreement on the arbitration matters, the arbitral tribunal has great discretion and decisive status, which may make Annex VII arbitration become a kind of arbitration determined by unilateral will The dispute settlement method with defects in procedural safeguards.
In the current international practice, it is not uncommon for the international judicial and arbitration institutions to expand their jurisdiction wantonly and the countries concerned to "carry private goods" in their packaging claims.
On the one hand, the tendency of the court to establish jurisdiction over the case through derivative issues and ancillary issues has become increasingly apparent, ignoring the essence of the dispute between the parties to the dispute. On the other hand, the threshold for the prosecution to initiate "interim measures" is extremely low, so that so far, the court has never refused to take "interim measures" due to lack of preliminary jurisdiction.
At the same time, as a by-product of international judicial and arbitration activities, the issue of "judicial law making" has become increasingly prominent. In the process of interpreting and applying international law, international judicial and arbitral institutions have broken through their authority from time to time, modifying or creating rules, which has had a substantive impact on the development of international law.
In fact, international judicial and arbitration institutions should follow the duty of "interpreting and applying the law" whether they are "settling disputes" in litigation and arbitration cases or "answering questions" in advisory opinion cases. The "judicial law making" has broken through the expectations and authorization of the parties to the dispute, making the international judicial and arbitration institutions with limited authority more likely to incur legitimate torture.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands
What is the vicious intention of the Philippines to abuse international arbitration?
According to international law, all countries have the right to choose their own way of dispute settlement. Any international dispute settlement mechanism exercising jurisdiction over disputes between countries must be based on the consent of the parties, that is, the "principle of consent of the parties".
The principle of consent of the parties derives from the basic principle of respecting national sovereignty and equality in international law. This is clearly reflected in the Charter of the United Nations and many international documents, including the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes.
Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice also stipulates the litigation jurisdiction to settle disputes between States. Whether it is voluntary jurisdiction, agreement jurisdiction or optional compulsory jurisdiction, it depends on the consent of the parties. The consent of States constitutes the basis and premise of the litigation jurisdiction of the Court.
As mentioned earlier, the core of the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines is the territorial dispute over islands and reefs and the dispute over maritime delimitation. As for territorial disputes, they are regulated by general international law, including customary international law, and the dispute settlement mechanism of the Convention has no right to deal with them. With regard to maritime delimitation disputes, the declaration made by China to exercise its rights under the Convention has been excluded from the compulsory dispute settlement procedure. These two points are "safety valves" that China has long resisted the malicious abuse of international maritime judicial procedures.
For a long time, the Philippines has harbored an unwarranted desire for some islands and reefs in the South China Sea, but has adopted different ways of protection under different historical conditions. The abuse of international judicial procedures is one of the despicable means taken by the Philippines at the instigation of the United States. Behind the judicial abuse that clearly violates the "consent principle of the parties" is a carefully designed legal trap.
Since the issuance of the illegal award of the South China Sea arbitration case in 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "2016 illegal award"), the Philippines has taken many small actions in maritime, diplomatic, legislative and judicial aspects to substantiate the "arbitration conclusion" that "China's claims in the South China Sea are illegal". In the view of the Philippines, it is no longer necessary to discuss "whether the claims are legal" if it later proposes any new arbitration in the South China Sea, but directly address the issue of "whether maritime activities are legal".
It can be inferred that the Philippines not only premeditated to initiate the second arbitration, but may even have the third and fourth times to enforce the 2016 illegal award by means of "serial arbitration" and "wash away" its own illegal claims in the South China Sea.
The Philippines threatened to refer to international arbitration in the South China Sea again on the grounds of marine environmental protection. In essence, it is still trying to sue China with things that belong to China, trying to use the dispute settlement mechanism of the law of the sea to practice legal fraud. The fundamental purpose is to solidify its illegal gains and impose its illegal claims and solutions on China.
It should be noted that the secondary arbitration that the Philippines may initiate is not isolated. Its whole process chain, such as the packaging of the cause of action, the drafting of the petition, the evidence reserve, the public opinion, the court defense, and the sensationalism, will certainly make it inextricably linked with the 2016 illegal award, which is essentially based on the "back hand" and "knife repair" of the 2016 illegal award.
In early May 2023, Philippine President Marcos Jr. visited the United States and held talks with US President Biden
What is the harm of the Philippines' indiscriminate prosecution to the international rule of law?
If the Philippines unilaterally submits the relevant disputes to compulsory arbitration again, ignoring that the core of the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines is the territorial sovereignty dispute and overlapping maritime rights and interests, it will not only violate the consensus repeatedly confirmed with China and its commitments in the Declaration, but also violate China's legitimate rights as a sovereign state and a party to the Convention.
In 2006, China made an exclusionary declaration in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 298 of the Convention, which excluded matters relating to maritime delimitation from the compulsory dispute settlement procedure under the Convention. The Philippines has packaged territorial issues that are not regulated by the Convention and disputes that have been excluded by China as issues of interpretation or application of the Convention, in violation of international law and the Convention.
The Philippines ignored the realistic conditions and forced relevant disputes into the so-called judicial settlement track. The third-party compulsory settlement procedure without national consent deviated from the original intention of the parties to the Convention in designing the dispute settlement mechanism. Arbitrary litigation in the form of packaged appeals would only further shake the confidence of the parties to the Convention in the dispute settlement mechanism.
The Philippines once again unilaterally initiated and insisted on promoting arbitration in the South China Sea, attempting to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, and trying to force China to compromise on relevant issues. This will not only lead to more complicated and difficult disputes in the South China Sea, but also further damage the integrity of the Convention and impact the international order of the law of the sea.
