The document discusses several key points:
1) The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was established in 1982 to codify international laws regarding maritime territories and sovereignty, following several UN conferences on the topic.
2) UNCLOS allows countries to delineate their internal waters, territorial seas, and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) through baseline laws, but does not enable territory acquisition.
3) International tribunals like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea can hear disputes but have no enforcement powers. For example, in the Philippines v. China case, China refused to participate despite being found in breach of UNCLOS over fishing rights.
The document discusses several key points:
1) The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was established in 1982 to codify international laws regarding maritime territories and sovereignty, following several UN conferences on the topic.
2) UNCLOS allows countries to delineate their internal waters, territorial seas, and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) through baseline laws, but does not enable territory acquisition.
3) International tribunals like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea can hear disputes but have no enforcement powers. For example, in the Philippines v. China case, China refused to participate despite being found in breach of UNCLOS over fishing rights.
The document discusses several key points:
1) The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was established in 1982 to codify international laws regarding maritime territories and sovereignty, following several UN conferences on the topic.
2) UNCLOS allows countries to delineate their internal waters, territorial seas, and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) through baseline laws, but does not enable territory acquisition.
3) International tribunals like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea can hear disputes but have no enforcement powers. For example, in the Philippines v. China case, China refused to participate despite being found in breach of UNCLOS over fishing rights.
The document discusses several key points:
1) The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was established in 1982 to codify international laws regarding maritime territories and sovereignty, following several UN conferences on the topic.
2) UNCLOS allows countries to delineate their internal waters, territorial seas, and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) through baseline laws, but does not enable territory acquisition.
3) International tribunals like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea can hear disputes but have no enforcement powers. For example, in the Philippines v. China case, China refused to participate despite being found in breach of UNCLOS over fishing rights.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
Module 6 Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters
and territorial sea. The US must bear its "international
Discussion responsibility". In history, bodies of water have made a great Historically, warships enjoy sovereign contribution to society as they paved the way for the immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, emergence of civilization. They served as a means to Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to this sustain human life due to the natural resources that rule in cases where they fail to comply with the rules can be found therein. Due to these vast natural and regulations of the coastal State regarding resources, nations tangle with issues concerning passage through the latter's internal waters and the maritime territories, prompting the creation of several territorial sea. international laws, concerning the maritime domain. Before the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea was Under International Law, disputes may be established, the United Nations held three submitted to the International Tribunal of the Law of Conferences on the Law of the Sea, namely: UNCLOS the Sea (ITLOS), to an Ad hoc Chamber of the Seabed I, II and III. Disputes Chamber or to a binding arbitration, such as in the case of Philippines vs. China, wherein the UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades- Philippines decided to take the matter to arbitration. long negotiations among United Nations members to But China refuses to participate in the proceedings codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the nor acknowledge the tribunal ruling. world’s oceans and submarine areas. In this case, China asserts that it has Baselines laws such as RA 9522, were enacted “indisputable sovereignty” and “historic rights” to by UNCLOS III State-parties to mark-out specific the disputed territories using its “nine-dash line” claim basepoints along their coasts from which baselines that overlaps with the UNCLOS-mandated 200- are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. From the decision of the Tribunal, whatever historic rights China may have had were extinguished These baselines laws, therefore, are not when UNCLOS was adopted, to the extent those modes of acquiring or losing territories, but statutory rights were incompatible with UNCLOS. The Tribunal mechanisms for UNCLOS III State-parties to delimit also found China in breach of Article 58 (3)[27] of the with precision the extent of their maritime zones and Convention, due to its failure to prevent fishing by continental shelves. In turn, this gives notice to the Chinese flagged ships in the exclusive economic zone rest of the international community of the scope of of the Philippines, failing to respect the sovereign the maritime space and submarine areas within which rights of the Philippines over its fisheries in its States parties exercise sovereignty or jurisdiction. exclusive economic zone. (Magallona vs. Executive Secretary) Conclusion Finally, in 1982, the UNCLOS was established. Many of the provisions of the UNCLOS are a repetition UNCLOS Tribunals are created to resolve of earlier convention law or a codification of disputes concerning maritime domains. However, the customary law, which therefore suggests that the sad truth is that these tribunals have no power to same will be binding on all states, including those who enforce its nominally binding decisions for the reason are not parties to the convention, such as the US in that disputes over territorial sovereignty are beyond the case of Arigo vs. Swift. The subject matter in this their jurisdiction. case came within the ambit of the UNCLOS when the States should cooperate on a global basis and, US warship entered a restricted area in violation of as appropriate, on a regional basis, directly or through R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef competent international organizations, in formulating system. and elaborating international rules, standards and Non-membership in the UNCLOS does not recommended practices and procedures for the mean that the US will disregard the rights of the protection and preservation of the marine environment and to preserve foreign relations with each other.