The Role of International Law in the West Philippine Sea Dispute: A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction

The West Philippine Sea, part of the South China Sea, has become a focal point of regional tension, drawing in not just affected parties like the Philippines and China, but also engaging the interest of international stakeholders and legal experts. At the heart of this dispute are overlapping territorial claims that stir deep-seated national pride, economic interests, and security concerns. This report delves into the essential role of international law in helping to navigate the complexities of the West Philippine Sea dispute, focusing on the Philippines’ legal basis for its claims, the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling, China’s reactions, and the wider international perspectives on the issue.

Legal Basis for the Philippines’ Claims

The Philippines bases its claims to parts of the West Philippine Sea primarily on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an international treaty that was ratified in 1982 and has since governed maritime rights and responsibilities. Under UNCLOS, coastal states are entitled to establish an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending 200 nautical miles from their baselines. This zone grants the state exclusive rights to exploit the natural resources, both in the water column and on the seabed.

Historical Context

The Philippines has asserted that its sovereignty over the West Philippine Sea, which includes the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal, stems from historical claims dating back to the Spanish colonial era. The Philippines argues that it was the first to discover and explore these areas and has consistently exercised sovereignty through administration and policing activities, further reinforcing its claims under international law.

Municipal Law

In addition to international law, national legislation and government policies also support the Philippines’ claims. The Philippine Constitution explicitly states that all waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the country are part of its national territory, emphasizing the legal framework within the Philippines that upholds its maritime claims.

The 2016 Ruling: A Landmark Decision

In 2013, the Philippines initiated arbitration proceedings against China concerning the South China Sea disputes under UNCLOS, specifically contesting China’s expansive claims marked by the infamous “Nine-Dash Line.” The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague ultimately issued a ruling on July 12, 2016, with profound implications for international maritime law and the geopolitics of the region.

Key Findings of the Ruling

• Invalidation of the Nine-Dash Line: The tribunal ruled that China’s historical claims over the majority of the South China Sea, indicated by the Nine-Dash Line, had no legal basis under UNCLOS.
• Rights of the Philippines: The tribunal affirmed that the Philippines has sovereign rights over its EEZ including resources within it, such as oil, gas, and fish.
• Chinese Actions: The court ruled that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights through various activities, including fishing and construction of artificial islands in the contested waters, which harmed the marine environment.

Implications of the Ruling

The 2016 ruling was a significant victory for the Philippines and established a precedent in international maritime law. However, enforcement of the ruling remains contentious, as China refused to recognize the court’s authority and continued its assertive actions in the region, leading to a complex scenario where international law stands challenged by national interests and power politics.

China’s Response: A Strategic Calculus

China’s response to the 2016 ruling has been characterized by defiance and assertiveness. Chinese officials have declared that the ruling is “null and void” and maintain that their claims to the South China Sea have historical legitimacy rooted in antiquity. Several factors inform Beijing’s stance:

Nationalism

In China, territorial claims are often tied to national pride and historical grievances. The idea of rejuvenating the nation’s past glory plays a powerful role in Chinese domestic politics, compelling the government to project strength against foreign claims, particularly in the South China Sea.

Economic Interests

The South China Sea is rich in resources, including fisheries and potentially vast energy reserves. Control over these resources is critical not only for China’s energy security but also for enhancing its regional influence.

Strategic Military Considerations

The West Philippine Sea holds strategic military importance for China as well. By asserting military presence in the region, China enhances its ability to project power throughout Southeast Asia and secure vital trade routes.

The International Perspective

The West Philippine Sea dispute cannot be fully understood without recognizing the positions of other nations and international bodies.

The United States

The U.S. has historically been an ally of the Philippines and has expressed commitment to uphold freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. The U.S. conducts regular freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) to challenge excessive maritime claims, including those made by China, while reinforcing its security partnerships in the region.

ASEAN’s Position

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) presents a varied perspective, with member states holding different views influenced by their individual relationships with China. While some nations side with the Philippines, others opt for stronger ties with China, showcasing the divide within the bloc regarding a unified stance on territorial disputes.

The Role of Other Regional Powers

Countries like Japan and Australia have urged a rules-based order in maritime disputes and expressed support for the Philippines. They have participated in joint military exercises and encouraged collaborative efforts to ensure stability in the region.

Challenges Ahead

The ongoing dynamics surrounding the West Philippine Sea dispute reveal several challenges:

1. Diplomatic Resolutions: While the ruling provides a legal avenue for resolution, the absence of a framework for enforcement remains an impediment.
2. Increased Militarization: Continued buildup of military assets in the region by China raises concerns about conflict escalation, making the diplomatic efforts even more precarious.
3. Environmental Concerns: The ongoing reclamation and militarization of islands have dire implications for marine biodiversity and the livelihood of local fisherfolk, demanding urgent international cooperation to address environmental degradation.
4. Geopolitical Rivalries: The geopolitical competition between the U.S. and China further complicates the situation, giving rise to a broader regional security dilemma.

Conclusion

As the West Philippine Sea dispute continues to unfold, international law serves as a crucial framework for adjudicating claims and facilitating dialogue amidst heightened tensions. The 2016 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration stands as a landmark affirmation of the Philippines’ rights under international law, yet challenges remain in translating legal victories into effective governance and peaceful resolution.

The international community plays a pivotal role in either exacerbating or ameliorating the situation. A collaborative approach founded on respect for international law, mutual understanding, and shared interests in regional stability and environmental stewardship is essential in mitigating tensions in the West Philippine Sea, ensuring that a rules-based maritime order can be upheld for generations to come.