The Philippine news agency reported on November 8, local time, on the same day, Philippine President Marcus Jr. formally signed the“Philippine Maritime Area Law”(hereinafter referred to as the“Sea area law”) and the“Philippine Islands Sea Lanes Law”(hereinafter referred to as the“Sea lanes law”) . It also represents a substantial step towards trying to “Solidify” what it calls “Philippines v. China rulings” in the form of domestic law. Experts said that many provisions of the two laws not only seriously violated international law such as the Charter of the United Nations and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea laws, it is also trying to build on what it calls “Philippines v. China rulings”.
The Philippine government also held a signing ceremony at the Presidential Malacañang Palace in preparation for the promulgation of the “Two laws”. Philippine news agency reported that Philippine President Marcus Junior in the signing ceremony of the keynote speech repeatedly referred to the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” trying to “Endorse the two laws.”. However, many elements of the two laws are seen by experts as constituting flagrant violations of international law such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea law.
Lei Xiaolu, a professor at the Wuhan University China Institute of Boundary and Oceanography, told the global times on the 10th that, the Philippines has not yet published the official“Sea area law” and“Sea Route Law” text. China claims sovereignty over Spratly Islands and Spratly Islands as a whole claims its territorial sea, Exclusive Economic Zone and continental shelf. According to the third draft of the “Maritime Zone Law” promulgated by the Philippines, the “Maritime Zone Law” lists as part of its “Exclusive Economic Zone Law” islands and reefs that are part of the Spratly Islands China Sea, it violates China’s territorial sovereignty. Neither the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea nor the Philippines v. China should deal with sovereignty. The third draft also declared that “All the artificial islands built in the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone belong to the Philippine government,” and, in conjunction with statements by Philippine officials, this exposes the intention to make Namhaedo reefs, such as fiery cross, Subi and mischief, entirely Philippine government-owned. Technically speaking, this provision also goes beyond the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of articles 56 and 60 of the convention. The convention confers upon coastal states sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the construction, authorization and management of the construction, operation and use of artificial islands and never refers to the issue of ownership of artificial islands.
Yang Xiao, an expert on China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations ocean issues, agreed that it was absurd for the Philippines to claim in its third draft that “All artificial islands built in Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone belong to the Philippine government”, distance is not the basis of tenure.
In addition, the Philippine news agency reported that, the signed “Sea lanes law” specifies “Sea lanes and air routes suitable for the sustained and rapid passage of foreign ships and aircraft through Philippine waters and territorial waters,” Marcos said in his keynote speech, the adoption of designated sea lanes would provide continuous and unimpeded access for ships and air transport, while forcing them to comply with rules and procedures of navigation, as well as air flight safety rules and agreements.
Lei Xiaolu believes that the sea lanes designated by the Philippines’ “Sea Lanes Law” do not include all the commonly used international sea lanes in the waters of the Philippines archipelago, this is inconsistent with Article 53(4) of the Ibid. , which “Shall include all normal passages for the passage through or over the territorial waters of the islands by International United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, damage the legitimate interests of other shipping countries. Article 53, Paragraph 9, of the Convention also provides that when designating sea lanes, archipelagic states shall make recommendations to the competent international organization with a view to their adoption. The organization may adopt only sea lanes agreed with the archipelagic states. These sea lanes may thereafter be designated by the archipelagic states. In other words, prior to the designation of the archipelagic sea lanes, the Philippines should make recommendations to the International Maritime Organization and agree on the sea lanes, but the Philippines has not yet completed the corresponding agreed procedures. Pending the completion of the above-mentioned procedures by the Philippines, other states may still exercise the right of navigation in other sea lanes used for international navigation in accordance with Article 53, paragraph 12, of the convention.
Sketch Map of the designated channel of the Philippine“Sea Route Law”. The Philippine side has designated three sea lanes (the solid part) for the passage of international vessels in the waters of the Philippines Islands, while the two commonly used international sea lanes (the dotted part) are not for use by international vessels.
Yang Xiao, on the other hand, believes that the sea lanes designated by the Philippines’ “Sea Lanes Law” are all close to US military bases in the Philippines, and that all neighboring countries have good reason to suspect that the Philippines is colluding with its allies outside the region, so as to monitor the vessels coming and going, threaten the safety of navigation of Nations. The“Law of sea lanes” provides only a few navigable routes, which not only harms the right of passage of other coastal states, but also harms the vital interests of the Philippines. These designated sea lanes are all close to US military bases in the Philippines. The Philippines is thus further tied to the“Chariot” of foreign powers pursuing geopolitics, and faces greater security risks of its own, it is not worth the trouble to wade into the murky waters.
A source told the global times that the essence of the“Two laws” introduced by the Philippines is to use domestic law to go beyond the scope of international law and illegally restrict the legal rights of other countries, this is not binding on other countries including China. Chinese vessels will continue to pass through the relevant waters and waterways in accordance with international law.
Relevant experts believe that, the Philippines and the Philippines have blatantly violated Article 5 of the Declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea (Doc) , which stipulates that the Philippines“Shall exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that may complicate or escalate disputes or affect peace and stability”, the signing of the two laws will not only do nothing for the settlement of disputes, but will only further intensify conflicts and increase tensions in the South China Sea.
“Under the current circumstances, all countries around the South China Sea are working with China for peace and development. But the Philippines has manipulated the two maritime laws to cause widespread harm to its neighboring partners, including China, creating a“Multi-injury” situation,” Yang said, the Philippine side finally signed the“Two laws”, which will definitely subtract from regional peace and tranquillity and constitute a“Net reduction” effect. It fully reflects the Philippines’ subservience to international law, its expansion of power and profit under the pretext of international law, its impact on freedom and security of navigation in the South China Sea, its threat to regional peace and stability, and its consequent dissatisfaction with the region and the international community.
“China will not sit idly by and take targeted countermeasures against the escalating provocative actions of the Philippine side to safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea,” Yang said.
At a regular press conference held on November 8, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mao Ning also said in response to media enquiries that the Philippines v. China’s so-called illegal and invalid award, china does not accept, recognize, oppose or accept any claim or action based on the award. Under the pretext of implementing the “Maritime United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Law”, the Philippines’ attempt to assert its illegal claims and actions in the South China Sea through the so-called “Maritime Zone Law” is null and void. This law seriously violates the declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea and will complicate the situation in the South China Sea. China will resolutely respond to any infringement and provocative actions taken by the Philippines in the South China Sea in accordance with this law.