Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza has asserted the country’s rights over the disputed West Philippine Sea, saying that China’s claim over the entire South sea lacks basis in international law.
In justifying the country’s resort to arbitration of the territorial dispute with China, Jardeleza said: “We may be a small nation, but we come from a proud race. We may have less in armament, but we have a mighty weapon, the majesty of the law. With this self-defense instrument, we thus have sought to bring China to arbitration.
“China’s grand claim to cover almost the entire South China Sea, and all the maritime features therein, has no basis in international law,” Jardeleza said, in his keynote speech at the forum on “Borders and Cross-Border Enforcement” at Harvard Law School recently.
The South China Sea, part of which is known in the Philippines as the West Philippine Sea, is a semi-enclosed sea in Southeast Asia. The Sea–which covers almost three million square kilometers—is surrounded by six states namely: China, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam, and by Taiwan.
Jardeleza stressed that the Philippine government was prompted to seek international arbitration after “years and years of diplomatic negotiations have failed to resolve our differences with China.”
“To protect our sovereign rights and our heritage, the Philippine government, under the leadership of our President, Benigno S. Aquino III, opted to turn to international law and the compulsory and binding dispute settlement procedures of the UNCLOS,” the SC magistrate said, referring to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
“In the Philippine claim, we seek a ruling that will, among others, declare invalid China’s nine-dash line, having no basis in law . . .” he added.
Before being appointed justice as the 15th justice of the Supreme Court, Jardeleza served as the Solicitor General as well the Philippine agent in the arbitration case before the United Nations tribunal.
Acting Solicitor General Florin Hilbay is now handling the country’s arbitration case against China.
Jardeleza pointed out that the country’s bid for arbitration, which invoked a remedy under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), was pursuant to country’s adherence to international law.
“Our decision to turn to arbitration, as a remedy provided by international law, proceeds from our unshakeable belief in the rule of law even on cross-border matters. If we have a written constitution governing the use of our oceans, then surely, we, as nations using principled argumentation, can peacefully settle differences in interpretation and application,” the Philippine magistrate said.
Jardeleza strongly urged China to heed the invitation of the Tribunal to participate in the arbitral proceedings.
“China has so far refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings despite continuous and many invitations from the tribunal. Again we ask: Under a regime of law, wouldn’t the world be better off if China contributed to the argumentation, so that by its reasoned elaboration, it could enlighten everyone on the legal bases for its ambitious claim over almost all of the South China Sea?” the SC justice said.
According to Jardeleza, the arbitration case is a “golden opportunity” for China to engage in dialogue not just with the arbitration panel “but, in a larger sense, with all of mankind.”
As to the question on whether China would comply with the tribunal ruling favorable to the Philippines, the SC magistrate said the largest of the claimant nations in the South China Sea dispute was “legally obliged to comply with the ruling.”
Should China ignore such a ruling, Jardeleza said that it would be a “clear and open violation of its international legal obligations.”
“This, with all due respect, is a matter China should consider, mindful of its international prestige and influence. We would, of course, prefer China to present itself as a responsible and law-abiding member of the international community, and thus abide by an international arbitral award,” the magistrate said.
“This decision should be viewed by the rest of the world as fair and just. More particularly, the award will be reflective of the established rules of international law,” he added.
“We are aware that there is no international policeman empowered to enforce decisions of public law tribunals. We nevertheless have this article faith that the constable of world public opinion will convince and consequently persuade China to bring itself back within the international legal order,” the magistrate said.