ARRIBA, Edward Vange P.

PIL
CHINA VS PHILIPPINES:
MODERN DAVID VS GOLIATH STORY
The dispute between the Philippines and China regarding the very controversial
Scarborough Shoal has been the subject of international debates for years now. The two parties
involved are mocked by many people and scholars as the modern David vs Goliath story
because of their extreme political and economic disparity. But why are these parties doing their
best to get a parcel of land?
Scarborough Shoal (Chinese name: Huangyan Island; Philippine names: Bajo de
Masinlc, Panatag Shoal), is more correctly described as a group of rocks or very small islands
plus reefs in an atoll shape, rather than as a shoal. It is located between the Macclesfield Bank
and Luzon Island of the Philippines in the South China Sea. According to figures quoted by the
US Energy Information Administration, one Chinese estimate puts possible oil reserves as high as
213 billion barrels - 10 times the proven reserves of the US. The Scarborough is also rich with
dynamic fisheries and marine ecosystem; it is also estimated to have stored a huge amount of
natural crude oil underneath its shelves. In short, Scarborough Shoal is surely a gold mine that
can skyrocket economic growth to the country who will have the right to cultivate its natural
resources.
As of this moment, The Philippines and China has their own claims for Scarborough.
China claims indisputable sovereignty over all the waters, islands, reefs, rocks, seabed,
minerals, and living and non-living resources falling within its 9-dashed line claim in the South
China Sea. China anchors its 9-dashed line claim on so-called historical rights. China admits
that its 9-dashed line claim was first included in an official Chinese map only in 1947 during the
Kuomintang Government. China has been alleging that they were already developing and
exploiting Huangyan Island for a long time. Huangyan island and its surrounding waters are a
traditional fishing place for Chinese fishermen. Since ancient time, the Chinese fishermen have
been fishing in Huangyan Island and its surrounding waters. In January 1935, the Map
Verification Committee of China, which consisted of representatives from Ministry of Interior
Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Education and Navy, declared sovereignty over
132 islands, reefs and shoals. Huangyan Island, which was called Scarborough Shoal at the
time, was included as a part of Zhongsha Islands and included in the territory of China. In
October 1947, Chinese government announced the new name list of South China Sea islands and
Scarborough Shoal was renamed as Minzhu (or Democratic) Reef. All the official maps
published by Chinese governments of different periods marked Huangyan Island as Chinese
territory. All of these happened long before UNCLOS came into force in 1994.
However, Chinas 9-dashed line if ever implemented will grant almost 90% of the South China
Sea thus it negates and violates the Philippines legal entitlement under UNCLOS to an EEZ and
ECS.

Moreover, UNCLOS prohibits states from making any reservation or exception to UNCLOS
unless expressly allowed by UNCLOS. Any reservation of claims to historical rights over the
EEZ or ECS of another coastal state is prohibited because UNCLOS does not expressly allow a
state to claim historical rights to the EEZ or ECS of another state. In short, UNCLOS does not
recognize historical rights as basis for claiming the EEZs or ECSs of other states.
The Philippines claim on the Scarborough reef is based on existing international laws. The
Philippines claims that Bajo de Masinloc is an integral part of the Philippine territory. It is part of
the Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales. It is located 124 nautical miles (220
kilometers) west of Zambales and is within the 200- nautical-mile (370 kilometers) exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) and Philippine continental shelf. Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction
over the Bajo Masinloc is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within
its 200 nautical mile EEZ or continental shelf under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(Unclos). Although the Philippines necessarily exercises sovereign rights over its EEZ and
continental shelf, the reason why the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territory is
anchored on other principles of public international law.
The United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines the rights and
responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for
businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. Its salient tasks
enforce coastal and archipelagic states to exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea, establish
an exclusive economic zones or EEZs, subject parties to the International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea in cases of disputes, and among others.
The key features of the of the Law of the sea is stated in article 2 and 3 which states that the
Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea which they have the right to establish
its breadth up to a limit not to exceed 12 nautical miles; Article 4 states that Archipelagic States,
made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters, have
sovereignty over a sea area enclosed by straight lines drawn between the outermost points of the
islands; the waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters where States may
establish sea lanes and air routes in which all other States enjoy the right of archipelagic passage
through such designated sea lanes; Article 25 states that Coastal States have sovereign rights in a
200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain
economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental
protection.
The Philippines signed the UNCLOS on December 10, 1982 and ratified it on May 8,
1984 with reservations. China, on the other hand, ratified the UNCLOS on June 7, 1996 also
with reservations obviously pertaining to territorial sovereignty and made clear its opposition to
Section 2 of Part XV of the UNCLOS with respect to all categories of disputes.
Given the two claims of China and the Philippines, I personally believe that the
Philippines has the better right regarding the Scarborough Shoal. This is because UNCLOS
prohibits states from making any reservation or exception to UNCLOS unless expressly allowed
by UNCLOS. Any reservation of claims to historical rights over the EEZ or ECS of another
coastal state is prohibited because UNCLOS does not expressly allow a state to claim historical

rights to the EEZ or ECS of another state. In short, UNCLOS does not recognize historical
rights as basis for claiming the EEZs or ECSs of other states.
Also, During the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, the Peoples Republic of
China failed to expressly state a reservation on the binding effects of the provisions of the
convention. Since the convention cannot settle actual disputes, and the International Court of
Justice hears and tries the case, in following the embedded International Laws, Republic of
China has lost its claim when it failed to state a reservation purporting its opposition to the legal
effects of the ratification of the Law of the Sea. By not stating a reservation, the Republic of
China must follow the provisions of the Law of the Sea, according to the doctrine of Pacta Sunt
Servanta which states that every treaty in force is binding upon parties and must be performed by
them in good faith. Any other proof of claim may it be Historical or not, will not amount or be
greater than a convention or treaty among states.
UNCLOS is the Constitution for the worlds oceans and seas. UNCLOS codified the then
existing customary international law of the sea, created novel entitlements in favor of coastal and
landlocked states, and adopted a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism to insure that there is
a final authoritative body to interpret and apply its provisions.
UNCLOS has been ratified by 165 states, comprising an overwhelming majority of the members
of the United Nations. For this reason, even the novel maritime entitlements under UNCLOS in
favor of coastal and land-locked states, which maritime entitlements have been consistently
affirmed by international tribunals since 1994, now form part of customary international law.
Even non-signatory states, as well as signatory states that later withdraw from UNCLOS, are
bound by these maritime entitlements.
UNCLOS governs only maritime entitlements, maritime space and maritime disputes. The
maritime entitlements of states the territorial sea, EEZ and ECS and their resources emanate
and are drawn only from baselines on continental land or islands. UNCLOS provides for a
compulsory dispute settlement mechanism, subject to certain types of disputes that states are
allowed to exclude from compulsory arbitration. All states that ratified UNCLOS bound
themselves in advance to this compulsory dispute settlement mechanism. The Philippines and
China, having ratified UNCLOS, are bound by this compulsory dispute settlement mechanism.
Given all these things, this dispute can, and must be resolved, through the Rule of Law because it
is the only fair, just and durable solution to a situation where the opposing states are vastly
unequal in terms of military, economic and political strength. Any resolution of the dispute
outside of the Rule of Law will only result in unequal treaties and plant the seeds of conflict for
future generations.
The Rule of Law in the West Philippine Sea dispute is UNCLOS. All the claimant states to the
dispute are parties to UNCLOS and are bound to comply with their treaty obligations under
UNCLOS in good faith. If the West Philippine Sea dispute is settled in accordance with
UNCLOS, then the world can be assured that there will be a just, permanent and lasting peace in
the West Philippine Sea.

But despite the strength of the claim of the Philippines, It saddens me that the Polical power and
strength of China is becoming a hindrance for us to attain justice. As of the moment, the
Philippines is working toward a diplomatic solution and it committed itself to the process of
consultations with China toward a peaceful solution to the situation. However, The China is on
the process of creating bases on the Scarborough Shoal and created improvements for the
maximization of its resources.
Ideally, the rule of law must always govern. But in this dispute, the world is just so afraid to
administer truth and justice because of its implications to their own economy. Thus, China still is
in possession of the Scarborough Shoal as of this moment.