The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has disputed a report posted
on the website of the Chinese Embassy in Manila that claims that both
the Philippines and China agree that the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (Unclos) “cannot be utilized as a legal ground to
claim territorial sovereignty.”
“Therefore, the fact that Huangyan Island (Panatag or Scarborough
Shoal) is within the 200 nautical miles Exclusive Economic Zone or
continental shelf of Luzon Island has no relevance in determining
sovereignty either,” said the report titled “The Standoff between
Beijing and Manila around the Huangyan Island: Who owns the shoal?”
The report was written by Gao Jianjun, international law professor at China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing.
The Philippines refers to the disputed rock formation as Bajo de Masinloc and Panatag Shoal.
In a text message to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, DFA spokesperson
Raul Hernandez on Sunday reiterated the Philippine position that “under
Unclos, the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights over its
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf.”
Relaying inaccurate info
The Bajo de Masinloc is located 124 nautical miles west of Zambales,
which is “well within the 200-nautical mile EEZ and continental shelf of
the Philippines as provided under Unclos,” Hernandez said.
Last month, the foreign office temporarily stopped diplomatic
meetings with the Chinese embassy, charging the Chinese diplomats with
relaying inaccurate information to Beijing.
The DFA had accused Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing of wrongfully
conveying a nonexistent agreement of a pullout of all vessels in the
Panatag Shoal area.
Hernandez clarified that what was agreed upon in earlier meetings was
for the Philippine and Chinese sides to refrain from doing anything
that would increase tensions in the disputed area.
Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario had said that the inaccuracy of
information being relayed to China could somehow trigger different
protocols.
The DFA head recalled that during the third meeting with the Chinese
side, Ma informed the foreign office that Beijing was becoming more
assertive because Manila had violated an agreement.”
‘No agreement’
“I said…there was no agreement. That’s why we are in a stalemate.
They were harping that we didn’t honor an agreement. I felt I should
clarify that with the Chinese government, it seems that report was not
accurate,” Del Rosario told a recent DFA press briefing.
The Philippines only recently appointed an ambassador to Beijing.
In his report, Gao noted that “since 1997, the Philippine side has
disputed China’s sovereignty over Huangyan Island… It is interesting to
note that both sides agree that geographical proximity is not a mode of
acquiring territory under international law. Thus, the fact that
Huangyan Island is closer to the Philippines than China has no
consequence for the settlement of the dispute.”
First discovered by China
According to Beijing, the basis of its sovereignty over Huangyan
Island is: “It is China that first discovered this island, gave it the
name, incorporated it into its territory and exercises jurisdiction over
it,” while Manila asserts that “the Philippines has exercised both
effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc
since its independence.”
“Thus, both sides take the occupation of terra nullius as the legal basis of their claim to the island in question,” he said.
Gao said Huangyan Island was discovered by China. He also pointed out
that “all the official maps published by the Chinese governments of
different periods marked Huangyan Island as Chinese territory.”
Scientific expeditions
“Many scientific expedition activities, authorized or endorsed by Chinese authorities, were held on the island,” he added.
He recalled that “a Philippine flag was put up on the island by two
Philippine congressmen in 1997, and the baseline around Huangyan Island
was delineated in 2009.”
“However, these activities were undertaken after the Philippines had
challenged Chinese sovereignty over Huangyan Island and for the purpose
of improving the legal position of Manila. According to the relevant
jurisprudence of the international tribunals, such activities should not
be taken into consideration in the determination of a territorial
dispute,” argued Gao.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry E. Esplanada | Philippine Daily Inquirer | may 28, 2012 | Article Link
No comments:
Post a Comment