These patterns affect different areas differently. In Palawan, fishermen do not go beyond municipal waters and are therefore hardly concerned by the conflict. [fn] Overfishing in the province remains a problem, which has led to a ban on fishing for certain species in northeast Palawan and efforts to declare marine protected areas in some coastal cities. In addition, some municipalities such as Cuyo, Coron and Busuanga regularly experience interference from commercial interests in their waters, according to statistics compiled by the NGO Oceana. Crisis Group online interview, November 16, 2020. Another problem in Palawan is the trade in live reef fish, which encourages fishermen to sell samples of rare species to regional and global customers. Hide footnote The situation with the Spratlys is more complicated. Commercial fishing enterprises have already reported a decline in their catches in the region in 2013. While local fishermen have confirmed this sighting, Filipino scientists have found that the accumulation of coral reef fish around Thitu Island has actually increased – a positive sign given the importance of these fish to marine stocks and ecosystems. [fn]”Biodiversity and ecological connectivity”, DENR-Biodiversity Bureau (webinar), September 23, 2020. Aileen Baviera, “Territorial and Maritime Disputes in the West Philippine Sea: Foreign Policy Choices and Their Impact on Domestic Stakeholders,” Public Policy, Vol.
15, No. 2 (2016), p. 26. However, the abundance of fish species has increased in Nansha and Flat Islands, two neighboring territories occupied by the Philippines. From. [fn]”Biodiversity and ecological networking”, op. cit. Cit. Anecdotal evidence of a scientific expedition to both shoals and near Sabina Shoal suggests that Vietnamese and Chinese fishermen were present.
Crisis group correspondence, scientists, 10 November 2020.Hide footnote In other regions, such as Lingayen Gulf in Pangasinan province, declining stocks appear to be due to local – sometimes illegal – overfishing rather than maritime disputes further at sea. [fn] Crisis Group online interview, community workers, 19 October 2020.Hide footnote “It`s hard to convince fishermen to act sustainably,” said the wife of a fisherman in a coastal town. [fn] Crisis Group online interview, community workers, October 19, 2020. Some villages in La Union, for example, are not affected thanks to proactive local government measures such as the creation of marine protected areas. Crisis Group telephone interview, local government representative, 4 September 2020.Hide footnote Local government officials also highlighted the negative impact of climate change on fisheries. [fn] Online interview by Crisis Group, local government official, October 9, 2020. Hide footnote Before issuing the order, the Philippine Meteorological Bureau adopted the name PAGASA in 2011 to designate bodies of water in the west of the country, while continuing to use “Philippine Sea” to refer to bodies of water in the east of the archipelago. [8] As one former Philippine official summed it up: “Our position has shifted from what we thought was strategic clarity, as a partner and ally, to strategic ambiguity. [fn] Crisis Group online interview, November 1, 2020.Hide footnote In a video message, Philippine Vice President Leni Robredo expressed deep concern that the country has not yet fully implemented the PCA ruling. “The consequences of what is happening in the West Philippine Sea will go beyond our mandate and even our lives,” Robredo said. “The statement in the decision is powerfully simple: China`s claim to these waters is invalid. It is the Filipino people, our fishermen, our industries who have the right to live off their resources,” she said.
The stalemate, along with other maritime aggressions by China, such as the construction of artificial islands and the illegal capture and harvesting of live corals and sharks, prompted the Philippines to file a complaint with the UN-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, Netherlands. Direct negotiations with China on the maritime dispute came to nothing, so Aquino pursued the legal option and filed a lawsuit against China`s territorial claims under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). [fn] The Tribunal commended the efforts of the Philippines to find a solution through dialogue. “We tried to talk,” one diplomat said. Online interview with Crisis Group, 18. September 2020.Hide footnote The Permanent Court of Arbitration allowed the proceedings. Manila turned to the international tribunal to clarify questions of interpretation related to Beijing`s maritime claims, including the validity of claims based on historical rights as manifested by the nine-dash line. The Philippines` decision to go the legal route would have been “like a shock” to Beijing.
[fn] Crisis Group online interview, academic, August 23, 2020. ASEAN and most of its member states have been brilliantly silent on arbitration. Although Hanoi supported the subjugation of Manila, the Philippines was otherwise alone. Hide footnote China cancelled several high-level events and summits and issued a travel advisory that curtailed tourism to the Philippines. Overall, Beijing`s response was “very disproportionate,” according to a former Philippine official. [fn] Crisis Group online interview, 25 September 2020.Hide footnote After a positive ruling by the arbitral tribunal, our generation has yet to conquer the world and convince the Chinese people that they will become a rogue state if their government continues to violate international law. China`s leaders could not survive politically if they simply gave up claiming the 9-dotted line without the Chinese people being convinced that their 9-dotted line violated international law. Today`s Chinese generation has learned since they started school that the South China Sea belongs to them. The next generation of Filipinos, and even the next generation, must continue to lead a global campaign to convince the Chinese people that the dotted 9-line has no basis in international law.
“No negotiations on our territories. This will remain a particular concern and I will be very careful not to negotiate anything. After all, I can`t give what doesn`t belong to me and what I`m not allowed to do. 12. Avoid the legal argument that the Spratly Islands are a single entity that can be surrounded by straight baselines and form an exclusive economic zone. China`s 9-dotted claim nullifies and thus violates the Philippines` legal claim to an EEZ and SEC under UNCLOS. China`s 9-dotted line also denies the right of all states on this planet, including the Philippines, to fish on the high seas or in areas beyond a coastal country`s EEZ. China`s claim in dotted 9 denies and violates the right of all states on this planet, including the Philippines, to the seabed and its mineral resources beyond the SEC of a coastal state. Finally, China`s claim to “indisputable sovereignty” over areas of the South China Sea beyond the EEZ of coastal states violates UNCLOS` prohibition on states that subject the high seas to their sovereignty. 13. Reassure Southeast Asian neighbours by expressing their willingness to adopt a legally binding code of conduct for the South China Sea.
On 12 July 2016, the Court finally ruled in favour of the Philippines. The central conclusion was that China`s nine-dash line and assertion of “historical rights” have no basis in international law. [fn] Since China did not participate in the arbitration, it avoided having to clarify the nine-dash line of the line. Although Vietnam claims all of the Spratlys, it did not oppose the sentence. The court said Scarborough Shoal was a traditional fishing ground for Chinese (including Taiwan), Filipino and Vietnamese fishermen and ruled that China violated international law by denying Filipinos access to the area.