China’s Reaction to the Philippines’ Maritime Zones Act: Oh, What a Spoof!
So, it seems the Philippines decided to take a stroll down the legislative avenue and came back more fortified than a castle under siege. The enactment of the Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act is like laying down a freshly painted ‘Do Not Disturb’ sign at a beach resort where China thinks it has exclusive access. This, of course, has caused quite the hullabaloo in Beijing, and let’s be honest, when hasn’t it?
Now, this piece of news isn’t just a casual “What’s on the menu tonight?”—it’s about defining maritime boundaries. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we are deep in the waters of international law, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and all that jazz. The Philippines is wading in the legal shallows, while China is patrolling with its purported historical claims waving at us like a nine-dash line in a drunken sailor’s scrawl. They must feel like they painted the Mona Lisa and someone else came along and installed a new frame. Ouch!
Can we pause for a moment to appreciate the irony? China joined UNCLOS back in 1996—what a time that was!—probably thinking, “Hey, this is great, we’ll stick up for smaller countries against big bullies!” But fast forward to today, and China is the biggest bully of them all. There’s a scene straight out of a comedy where our former friend decides to upgrade from ‘defender of the tiny’ to ‘bully of the beach’ while clinging to a historical narrative that makes no more sense than a penguin in the Sahara.
Here’s where it gets a bit spicy: by enacting these laws, the Philippines basically threw a legal lasso around its maritime territories while saying, “Thanks but no thanks!” to questionable agreements from colonial times. Imagine having your great-great-grandfather’s contracts thrown in your face every time you wanted a say in your own house. The Philippines is telling the world, “It’s 2024—we’re not pawns in a 1900s game anymore!”
But let’s not forget the cherry on this international conflict cake. While China’s coast guard is out there playing ‘Naval Domination’ with a water cannon (because a giant shipping vessel simply isn’t enough), the Philippines and its ASEAN mates are stuck in a squabble over their own overlapping claims. You see, while everyone’s worried about China claiming the entire South China Sea, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines are still smoothing out their own maritime relationship dramas. It’s like a sitcom, but with fewer laugh tracks and more serious consequences.
And then there’s the U.S.—the elusive party not attending the party it created. The question on everyone’s lips is: Why has America not ratified UNCLOS? One can only assume they decided that playing by the rules is for football, not international waters. If they could just stick to the concept of ‘freedom of navigation,’ all while acting like the big kid on the block with the most marbles, they’ll be fine! But if they had ratified it, they might just have to share their toys with the rest of the world. Yikes!
In the midst of all this shenaniganry, ASEAN finds itself bound by a consensus that’s less of a united front and more like a group of ducks quacking in different directions. You’ve got Cambodia cozying up to China—talk about a relationship that raises eyebrows—while the others are more concerned about who gets to keep the last slice of territorial pizza.
So, what’s next? Arbitration, folks! That’s the ticket to solving this maritime mess, the ‘let’s sit down and figure this out’ approach. Sure, it might take a while, but consider it a lengthy therapy session for nations—complete with awkward silences and uncomfortable truths about their stretching maritime claims.
In conclusion, one thing is for sure: nobody told the Philippines it would be easy to stand up to the schoolyard bully that is China. Still, they’ve taken a vital step, like a kid putting their foot down in the playground. May this legal saga unfold like a Netflix series… one that we hope has a happy ending! Stay tuned because we’re all in for quite the ride.
November 18, 2024
MANILA – In a predictable move, China has expressed its vehement disapproval regarding the recent implementation of the Maritime Zones Act (Republic Act No. 12064). This legislation clearly delineates the Philippines’ maritime boundaries, encompassing our exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf (CS). It also includes the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act (RA 12065), which designates specific sea lanes and air routes that may be utilized by foreign military and civilian aircraft and vessels operating within these defined maritime areas. China’s opposition stems from its longstanding claims of historical sovereignty over these same waters, which have been contentious for years.
NEITHER SHOULD CHINA BE SURPRISED by this legislative action, as it fundamentally serves to preserve and reinforce our sovereign rights in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Moreover, it aligns with the Arbitral Award issued on July 12, 2016, by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, reaffirming international recognition of these maritime boundaries.
These two pivotal laws not only clarify but also reinforce the definition of our “National Territory” as outlined in Article I of our Constitution. This includes an explicit assertion of sovereignty over various territories, covering terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, along with components such as the territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, and insular shelves, as well as other submarine areas.
With the enactment of these laws, the Philippines has consequently refined its maritime and territorial boundaries, as originally defined in three historical treaties: (1) the 1898 Treaty of Paris between the United States and Spain; (2) the 1900 Treaty also between the US and Spain; and (3) the contentious 1930 Treaty between the US and the United Kingdom, which supposedly delineates the boundary between the Philippines and “North Borneo.”
BY STRICTLY ADHERING TO UNCLOS and implementing these two significant statutes, our nation has voluntarily conceded some maritime claims that were previously articulated in these treaties. In fact, it is imperative to note that all 168 signatories of the 1982 UNCLOS, including nine out of ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), as well as China, are expected to comply with UNCLOS and thereby adjust their maritime claims in the South China Sea (SCS).
Despite being a UNCLOS member, China has continued to assert dominance over all islands and islets and claimed maritime rights encompassing nearly the entire SCS, following its ambiguous nine-dash line theory, which has recently been updated to a ten-dash line. This claim was deemed invalid by the 2016 Arbitral Award. China’s more robust coast guard vessels patrol the SCS, utilizing aggressive tactics such as laser guns, water cannons, and ship boardings to enforce its claims, all under the archaic justification of discovery and conquest, a method of acquiring title long superseded by UNCLOS.
China joined UNCLOS as it aligned itself with developing nations during its negotiation phase from 1973-1982, seeking protection from more powerful nations through multilateral agreements. It is noteworthy that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) gained recognition as the legitimate “China” in 1971 with the United Nations, following the Kuomintang government’s retreat to Taiwan amid Mao Tse Tung’s rise. Today, China stands as a formidable military and economic power, increasingly showing reluctance to adhere to treaties that constrain its actions. Speculation abounds that China may contemplate withdrawing from UNCLOS entirely, particularly considering that its primary rival, the US, is not a signatory.
And why is the US not a member? Officially, it is due to the US Senate’s failure to ratify UNCLOS, a situation likely to persist as Washington prefers to navigate its foreign policy decisions strictly based on national interests, eschewing treaty obligations.
The lack of cohesion among ASEAN nations in opposing China’s militarization of the SCS can be attributed to several factors: (1) ASEAN does not function as a military alliance like NATO, where an attack on one member equates to an attack on all; (2) While Cambodia has signed UNCLOS, it has not fully ratified it and maintains close ties with China; (3) Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam share unresolved overlapping claims concerning their EEZ and CS; and (4) ASEAN operates on a consensus basis, rather than a majority vote system.
The resolution of competing claims among the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam is a complex process that has been attempted through diplomatic channels, akin to the diplomatic resolution between the Philippines and Indonesia, or via judicial avenues like the International Court of Justice, which was successfully leveraged by Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore.
However, given that the core issue centers around the interpretation and enforcement of UNCLOS, the most viable approach for resolving disputes among Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam would be to utilize arbitration as stipulated by UNCLOS. In my opinion, this pathway presents itself as the most prudent course of action in adherence to international law.
What are the key implications of the Philippines’ Maritime Zones Act for China’s claims in the South China Sea?
**Interview: China’s Reaction to the Philippines’ Maritime Zones Act**
*Date: November 19, 2024*
*Interviewer: Sarah Lopez, News Editor*
**Sarah Lopez:** Today, we have Dr. Enrique Ramos, an expert in international law and maritime disputes, to discuss the recent enactment of the Philippines’ Maritime Zones Act and the implications of China’s reaction. Dr. Ramos, thanks for joining us.
**Dr. Enrique Ramos:** Thank you, Sarah. It’s a pleasure to be here.
**Sarah Lopez:** To kick things off, how significant is the Philippines’ recent legislation regarding its maritime boundaries?
**Dr. Enrique Ramos:** Very significant. The Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act assert the Philippines’ rights and sovereignty over its maritime territory, aligning with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This legislation essentially tells the world, “These waters are ours,” which is crucial amidst ongoing tensions in the South China Sea.
**Sarah Lopez:** Speaking of tensions, China has expressed vehement disapproval of these laws. Why do you think they reacted so strongly?
**Dr. Enrique Ramos:** China’s reaction is multi-faceted. They claim historical rights over much of the South China Sea, a narrative they’ve pushed for years. With the Philippines clearly defining its maritime zones, it undermines China’s claims and puts pressure on their aggressive stance in the region. It’s akin to having someone redefine the terms of a game that you thought you had already won.
**Sarah Lopez:** There’s an interesting historical context, too. How do these new laws relate to past treaties and agreements?
**Dr. Enrique Ramos:** Exactly. The Philippines is redefining its maritime boundaries, moving away from colonial-era treaties that many argue are outdated. The nation is essentially saying, “We’re not bound by agreements that were made without our fair consideration.” It’s about asserting modern sovereignty in a way that reflects current realities and international law.
**Sarah Lopez:** You mentioned international law—how does this all tie back to UNCLOS and the recent Arbitral Award from 2016?
**Dr. Enrique Ramos:** UNCLOS provides the framework for maritime rights and boundaries. The 2016 Arbitral Award was crucial because it invalidated China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea. By enacting these new laws, the Philippines is reinforcing its compliance with international law while signaling to China and others that unilateral claims based on historical narratives hold little water in a modern legal context.
**Sarah Lopez:** And how do regional dynamics come into play, especially in relation to ASEAN members?
**Dr. Enrique Ramos:** That’s complex. While the Philippines is asserting its rights, other ASEAN members like Vietnam and Malaysia also have their claims, leading to potential overlaps. It creates a situation where ASEAN needs to present a united front, but differing interests can complicate that unity. Meanwhile, countries like Cambodia seem to be aligning more closely with China, which adds another layer to this geopolitical puzzle.
**Sarah Lopez:** Lastly, what do you think we can expect moving forward? Is arbitration the way to go?
**Dr. Enrique Ramos:** Arbitration seems to be the most viable option for resolving these disputes peacefully, though it will take time. The situation is like a long therapy session for nations. It will require a lot of dialogue, compromises, and diplomacy. As we see nations navigate their claims, it is essential to advocate for cooperative solutions over conflict.
**Sarah Lopez:** Thank you, Dr. Ramos, for your insights. It’s clear this maritime saga is just starting to unfold, and we’ll be keeping a close eye on developments.
**Dr. Enrique Ramos:** Thank you for having me, Sarah. It’s a critical moment for international law and regional stability.
*End of Interview*