Scarborough standoff triggers unprecedented case vs. China’s sea claims

World leaders and geopolitical experts will be keeping a close eye on the Permanent Court of Arbitration on July 12 as the tribunal based in The Hague releases its ruling on the Philippines' legal challenge against China's expansive claims in the South China Sea.

Win or lose, the new administration of President Rodrigo Duterte has vowed to respect the ruling of the United Nations-backed tribunal, whose proceedings had been snubbed by China, supposedly because it lacked of jurisdiction.

The much-anticipated verdict will be a culmination of a three-year legal battle, a path that Duterte's predecessor, Benigno Aquino III, took knowing that the Philippines, with its weak military, cannot press its claim by force.

What went before

Standing up to a powerhouse like China was spurred by an incident at the Panatag or Scarborough Shoal, a traditional fishing ground off the coast of Zambales.

On April 10, 2012, Chinese ships blocked the arrest of their fishermen, who were caught poaching by Philippine authorities.

Manila filed a diplomatic protest but Beijing insisted that it had "indisputable" sovereign rights over the shoal it referred to as Huangyan Island, citing historical claims that predates the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the so-called "constitution of the oceans."

China also did not make good on its promise to pull out its ships from the shoal even after Aquino ordered the removal of a Philippine Coast Guard patrol vessel and a Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources survey ship as part of the agreement to lower tensions in the area.

As a result, the Chinese were able to establish control of the shoal, depriving Filipino fishermen of their source of livelihood.

This prompted Aquino to elevate the maritime dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in January 2013, enraging China but drawing praises from major powers such as the United States, European Union and Japan, which is also locked in a territorial spat with China in the East China Sea.

For Aquino, taking the issue to court was also the most peaceful option after exhausting all political and diplomatic avenues to resolve the dispute for 17 years.

Arbitration

The Philippines questioned China’s nine-dash-line claim to almost the entire South China Sea, including islands, reefs and atolls under Manila's control and within the Philippines' 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone provided for under the UNCLOS.

China refused to take part in the proceedings, saying the tribunal has no jurisdiction on Manila’s complaint because it tackles sovereignty and maritime delimitation – issues that are beyond the scope of the tribunal and of the UNCLOS.

However, the Philippines said the case was not about determining sovereignty over territories and maritime boundary delimitation.

The Philippines said it wanted the tribunal to clarify maritime entitlements of different features in the resource-rich waters, where Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have competing claims.

The PCA called for a hearing last July 2015 where the Philippines asked the five-man tribunal to take jurisdiction of the case. Representatives from Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and Japan listened in.

On October 29, 2015, the PCA ruled that it had jurisdiction over seven out of the 15 issues raised by the Philippines against China, and set the schedule of hearings.

Philippine representatives returned to the Hague the next month and discussed the merits of the case.

Activity

China, on the other hand, was busy with its reclamation and construction activities in disputed territories such as Manila-claimed Fiery Cross Reef (Kagitingan Reef) and Subi Reef, triggering condemnation from several countries.

But China seemed to be oblivious to these calls, insisting that it had sovereignty over the vital sea lanes, through which $5 trillion worth of global trade passes every year, and that is believed to hold rich marine resources and oil and gas reserves.

Beijing's growing assertiveness in the South China Sea also pushed Manila to ramp up defense spending and forge deeper military ties with Washington.

In 2014, the Philippines and the US signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) which allows rotating US troops access to at least five bases including one in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, which is facing the South China Sea or West Philippine Sea.

Upheld by the Philippines Supreme Court last January as constitutional, the deal ensured larger US military presence in the country for a period of 10 years.

The US is also making "freedom of navigation" patrols in the sea that it regards as international waters.

This angered China as it called on the US and other countries that are not parties to the dispute to step aside.

Duterte's first foreign policy dilemma

Ahead of the ruling, China repeated its call for the Philippines to resolve the dispute through dialogue and negotiation.

Duterte said he would study the ruling of the PCA first before mapping out the Philippines' next move.

He reiterated though that the Philippines would not go to war with China just to enforce the decision which he hoped would be favorable.

"We are not in a position (to go to war). That's a massacre," Duterte told business leaders in Davao City on June 21.

"It is an issue of our exclusivity sa economic zone. That you place there obstructions that will impede or obstruct our right to develop and fish anywhere there, 'yun ang contention," he added.

For his part, Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay said any overlapping claims that may be encompassed in the decision can could the door for negotiations on possible sharing of natural resources in contested South China Sea areas.

He premised his view on the fact that the case is not about ownership of islands, shoals and reefs and overlapping sea boundaries.

"As the ruling will not address sovereignty and delimitation, it is possible that some time in the future, claimant countries might consider entering into arrangements such as joint exploration and utilization of resources in disputed areas that do not prejudice the parties' claims and delimitation of boundaries in accordance with UNCLOS," he said in a text message to GMA News Online on July 9.

Yasay, however, clarified that "any negotiation must be in the context of the PCA award." —NB, GMA News