UN Arbitral Tribunal – ellen tordesillas

The pitfalls of joint development of Spratlys with China

Published by Ellen on July 10, 2016

It’s best that Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr. study carefully the intricacies of joint exploration with China so he can advise President Rodrigo Duterte to go slow about it.

Yasay, in his clarification about what he said in an interview with Agence France Presse last week, said, ““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 (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).”

Even if the Philippines gets a favorable ruling Tuesday on the issues they raised against China before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, there would still be a lot of complications about joint development of the disputed areas in the South China Sea.

The number one problem is China’s concept of “setting aside dispute and pursuing joint development.”

One of the resource materials on the issue in the website of the China’s Foreign Ministry, says “The concept of setting aside dispute and pursuing joint development has the following four elements: 1. The sovereignty of the territories concerned belongs to China. 2. When conditions are not ripe to bring about a thorough solution to territorial dispute, discussion on the issue of sovereignty may be postponed so that the dispute is set aside. To set aside dispute does not mean giving up sovereignty. It is just to leave the dispute aside for the time being. 3. The territories under dispute may be developed in a joint way. 4. The purpose of joint development is to enhance mutual understanding through cooperation and create conditions for the eventual resolution of territorial ownership.”

No Hitler-calling vs China; no jetskiing to the Spratlys

Published by Ellen on July 3, 2016

President Duterte greets Chinese ambassador Zhao Jianhua in a reception of the Diplomatic Corps during the inaugural ceremony on June 30,2016

Change has come.

The sober position that the Duterte administration is taking in connection with the impending decision of the United Nations Arbitral Court on the case filed by the Philippines against China is a reversal of the “Shame China” strategy that the Aquino administration undertook.

It is also a departure from cinematic solution that then candidate Rodrigo Duterte regaled his supporters with during campaign rallies:
“I will ask the Navy to bring me to the nearest point in South China Sea that is tolerable to them and I will ride a jet ski. I’ll carry a flag and when I reach Spratlys, I will erect the Filipino flag. I will tell them, suntukan o barilan.”

Now carrying the mantle of the presidency, Duterte was a voice of moderation during the cabinet discussion aired live on TV on how they would handle the July 12 U.N. Court decision.

UN Arbitral Panel Rules In Favor of the Philippines: Now What?

Published by Ellen on November 7, 2015

Former Foreign Secretary Roberto R. Romulo

By Roberto R. Romulo

Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario’s dogged determination to pursue the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea dispute through the rule of law has proven his approach correct. The court ruled that the case was “properly constituted” under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that China’s “non-appearance” (i.e., refusal to participate) did not preclude the Court’s jurisdiction, and that the Philippines was within its rights in filing the case.

In the period before the ruling, there was a lot of pressure on the Secretary to dial down his stance and seek accommodation with China. While China has insisted on resolving the issue on a bilateral basis, the Secretary has maintained that this would leave us at a disadvantage and that in the instances where we tried to open dialogue, China has been unresponsive. That said, now that our hand has been strengthened, the argument in favour of the merits of seeking a peaceful, managed resolution has I think become even more persuasive. However, the responsibility of how to respond to this challenge will now have to be made by the incoming Administration. Unfortunately, the sounds currently coming from presidential aspirants or supporters of the aspirants reveal a misunderstanding of what the case is all about, claiming victory for our sovereign rights over the area. They have to get up to speed on the issue and determine the best way forward to protect the national interest rather than engaging in just nationalistic rhetoric.

The U.N. Arbitral Tribunal decision on PH case vs China

Published by Ellen on November 1, 2015

No amount of China’s protestation that the Oct 29 decision of the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal is “null and void” and it has “no binding effect” on them, cancels the fact that it’s a major blow to them.

Filipinos, on the other hand, should understand that the U.N. Arbitral Court’s decision, although a win for the country, does not award the disputed islands and waters of Spratlys to the Philippines.

That’s precisely because that is not what the Philippines asked from the U.N. Arbitral Tribunal when it filed the case against China on Jan. 22, 2013.

Members of the Tribunal: Judge Thomas A. Mensah of Ghana, president; Judge Jean-Pierre Cot of France; Judge Stanislaw Pawlak of Poland; Professor Alfred Soons of the Netherlands; and Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum of Germany. — Members of the Tribunal: Judge Thomas A. Mensah of Ghana, president; Judge Jean-Pierre Cot of
France; Judge Stanislaw Pawlak of Poland; Professor Alfred Soons of the Netherlands; and Judge Rüdiger
Wolfrum of Germany.

China on UN Arbitral Court decision in favor of PH: null and void

Published by Ellen on October 30, 2015

Peace Palace which houses the Permanent Court of Arbitration

China is not honoring the decision of the United Nations Arbitral Court that it has jurisdiction on the case filed by the Philippines against them, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement today.

China instead urged the Philippines to resolve the dispute through negotiations and consultations.

“The award rendered on 29 October 2015 by the Arbitral Tribunal established at the request of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitral Tribunal”) on jurisdiction and admissibility of the South China Sea arbitration is null and void, and has no binding effect on China,” the statement said.

On January 22, 2013, the Philippines asked the arbitral tribunal to rule on three basic issues: The validity of China’s nine-dash lines; Low tide elevations where China has built permanent structures should be declared as forming part of the Philippine Continental shelf; and That the waters outside the 12 nautical miles surrounding the Panatag Island (Scarbourough shoal) should be declared as part of the Philippines Exclusive Economic Zone.

China refused to participate in the proceedings saying the U.N. Court has no jurisdiction on the conflict.

Tag: UN Arbitral Tribunal

The pitfalls of joint development of Spratlys with China

No Hitler-calling vs China; no jetskiing to the Spratlys

UN Arbitral Panel Rules In Favor of the Philippines: Now What?

The U.N. Arbitral Tribunal decision on PH case vs China

China on UN Arbitral Court decision in favor of PH: null and void