RP and PRC, which may carry significant ramifications for the South China Sea disputes.
The Fog of Law Both the RP and PRC are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Aquino administration contends that UNCLOS should be the basis to generate maritime claims and manage as well as resolve overlapping claims in the South China Sea. In contrast, China contends that its sweeping nine-dash line claims are based on “historical rights”, which precede the establishment of modern international law and, therefore, cannot be retroactively nullified by the relevant provisions of UNCLOS. The PRC claims “indisputable” sovereignty over much of the South China Sea. By citing such inter-temporal doctrine to justify its claims, China has shown—especially in the view of the Aquino administration— limited, if any, willingness to adjust its maritime claims in accordance with modern, accepted rules of the game, as enshrined in UNCLOS. Accordingly, the RP has resorted to compulsory arbitration under Article 287 and Annex VII of UNCLOS to settle its maritime disputes with China. In this sense, the RP’s arbitration case can also be seen as a clash between two doctrines: modern international law (crystallized under the aegis of European colonialism in Asia) vs. China’s pre-modern doctrine of territoriality (crystallized under the ancient Sino-centric order in Asia). The PRC, however, has cited procedural arguments, based on the provisions of UNCLOS, to sabotage the RP’s lawfare. Beijing contends that arbitration bodies under UNCLOS do not have the mandate to adjudicate upon the South China Sea disputes, since they fundamentally concern the questions of sovereignty and title to claims over disputed land features in the area. The PRC has also reiterated its 2006 declaration to the UN, whereby it cited exemption clauses (under Article 298) from compulsory arbitration, specifically regarding
The Aquino administration contends that UNCLOS should be the basis to generate maritime claims and manage as well as resolve overlapping claims in the South China Sea. In contrast, China contends that its sweeping nine-dash line claims are based on “historical rights”, which precede the establishment of modern international law and, therefore, cannot be retroactively nullified by the relevant provisions of UNCLOS.
South China Sea Lawfare • 121