Lecture concludes China's historical claim to Panatag not enough

At a lecture held at the Ortigas Foundation Library Monday, the claims of China and the Philippines on the disputed Panatag Shoal were presented and examined by Beijing-based journalist Chito Sta. Romana, and lawyer Harry Roque respectively.

 

“Historically, [China says] that they discovered it and drew it into their map in the Yuan Dynasty, which is the 13th up to the 14th century," Sta. Romana explained.

 

“They say that in 1279, the Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing performed a survey of the seas around China for the Mongolian emperor at that time, Kublai Khan," he added.

 

The veteran journalist also said China claims that the shoal, which they call Huangyan Island, has been, since ancient times, “a traditional fishing place for Chinese fishermen."

 

As for the Philippine claim, Roque said, “It’s historical, like China’s, except that it does not extend to as early as the 1300s."

 

“I discovered a 1724 map on deposit with the British library and I have procured a copy of that map, which in fact reflects that Scarborough Shoal is part of the Philippine archipelago. There is also a 1750 map and another chart, which gave the name Bajo de Masinloc to what is known as Scarborough," he explained.

 

However, Roque warned that in international tribunals, maps are often disregarded because “number one, the maps are inaccurate, number two, the names and titles found in maps are, more often than not, unreliable."

 

Historical claim not enough

 

Sta. Romana agreed, emphasizing that “a historical claim does not necessarily constitute a historical title to Scarborough Shoal. To prove that your claim should be with a title, you have to show that you exercised effective occupation and jurisdiction over a long period of time."

 

In that respect, according to both Sta. Romana and Roque, the Chinese claim falters.

 

“Discovery alone brings about only an inchoate right which still must be perfected through effective occupation. While China highlights that they discovered the island in 1200s, the earliest evidence of effective occupation that they would invoke is as late as 1935," Roque said.

 

He then went on to specify evidence of the Philippines invoking effective occupation, most obviously through the fishermen. He specified the regular patrols by the Philippine Navy and Air Force, as well as the apprehension by the Philippine Coast Guard of local and foreign fishermen who have been caught harvesting protected marine species.

 

Roque also mentioned military and weapon exercises and marine scientific experiments, and highlighted the construction of a lighthouse in 1965, that has since been destroyed in a typhoon.

 

“The building of a lighthouse is evidence that you are in the discharge of a sovereign function to promote safety of navigation," he said.

 

EEZ vs. 9-dash-line

 

Both speakers also criticized the 9-dash-line which China uses to mark the boundaries of their claim on the South China Sea. On the map, the line runs parallel to the coasts of Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines and includes not only the Scarborough Shoal but other disputed territories, such as the Spratlys.

 

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea, states are granted Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), areas up to 200 nautical miles from their baselines, where they are accorded sovereign rights to exclusively explore and exploit the natural resources found in the waters, and subsoil within the EEZ.

 

The Panatag Shoal is within the Philippines’ EEZ.

 

“The Chinese claim in the 9-dash-line map conflicts with the UNCLOS, exceeds what is permitted in the UNCLOS and intersects with EEZs of several countries in Southeast Asia, including the Philippines," Sta. Romana said.

 

“If we were to concede the rocks themselves and the 12 nm of territorial sea that they can generate, even conceding that, it is clear that in terms of relative merits of our title, our title, based on UNCLOS is far superior to China’s because as Chito said, the 9-dash-line has absolutely no legal basis anywhere you look," Roque added.

 

Bilateral negotiations?

 

Even as the tension has diffused and both Chinese and Philippine vessels have withdrawn from the Panatag Shoal, the question of how the issue will be resolved remains.

 

Both Roque and Sta. Romana pointed out that the Chinese prefer bilateral negotiations.

 

“They want to resolve it not by going to court but by having bilateral talks. Their proposal is back to the idea of joint exploration and development, and then there is the concept of a joint fishing zone or a joint maritime zone," Sta. Romana said.

 

Roque advocated bringing the matter to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

 

“What does China want to achieve through Bilateral negotiations? I’m not speculating here. China has other unresolved territorial disputes not only with the Philippines. In all its disputes it has refused to bring it to the international tribunal. It has refused to discuss them in any multilateral setting," Roque said.

 

“International law, like any law, is intended to be practiced by litigators. This is something that I think our policymakers have not recognized…it has to be resolved by an international tribunal because clearly, diplomacy will not work. I’m saying this not just as an isolated observation, but on the basis of China’s track record in resolving its many unresolved territorial disputes," he continued.

 

Roque concluded that submitting the Scarborough Shoal dispute to the binding and compulsory jurisdiction of the ITLOS may be the best course of action to finally resolve the issue and also the best for Philippine national interests. — DVM, GMA News