The Wall Street Journal
MANILA—The Philippines cried foul this week when China announced plans to begin regular patrols of the South China Sea, known here as the West Philippines Sea. The two countries have been engaged in a tense dispute over the region since 2012, when Chinese ships took control of Scarborough Shoal, which is just one of the areas Beijing and Manila contest.
Government spokesman Raul Hernandez insisted any such patrols would be illegal because the area in question is Filipino, not Chinese, territory: Under international law, he said in a statement sent by text message to reporters on Jan. 22, China’s Exclusive Economic Zone, or EEZ, “cannot extend beyond 200 nautical miles” from the Chinese mainland and Hainan Island, a province at the southernmost end of China.
* What does that mean? Every country with a coastline has ownership of the seas immediately around it. This area of “territorial sea” extends 12 miles from the coast, and foreign ships are not allowed to enter those waters without permission. Every country with a coastline also has an EEZ. This zone stretches 200 miles from the coast, and the controlling country has exclusive rights to exploit the resources within that area. That includes fishing and undersea drilling. Foreign ships are free to sail through an EEZ.
* And beyond that? These are the high seas, and global commons: All nations have the right to sail them and to exploit their natural resources.
* Says who? The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, is the main piece of international law that sets out maritime rules. Not all countries have ratified UNCLOS, but both China and the Philippines have. So, in theory, both are committed to respecting the system it prescribes.
* How does this apply to the small islands in the South China Sea? There are three types of features to think about – islands, rocks and reefs. An island is an inhabitable, though not necessarily inhabited, feature. Whichever country owns it also own 12 miles of territorial sea plus a 200 mile EEZ – even if the island is hundreds of miles from the mainland. That explains their great value to the claimants – a remote spec of land can potentially yield a huge EEZ, complete with all the resources it contains. Only about 20 of the 150 features comprising the Spratly Islands – a scattered South China Sea group claimed by China, the Philippines and others – can be classed as proper islands. A rock, on the other hand, is an uninhabitable feature. It gives the country that owns it 12 miles of territorial sea, but no EEZ; so rocks have limited value. A reef, or other submerged feature, provides neither territorial sea nor an EEZ – even if you build a structure on the reef that protrudes from the water (a tactic that some countries have tried).
* So are Chinese patrols in the South China Sea legal, or not? China claims about 90% of the South China Sea, even areas that lie well beyond 200 miles from the mainland. Beijing says it has controlled these waters for centuries. Other claimants, including the Philippines and Vietnam, reject that argument. If we accept China’s claim to most of the South China Sea, then of course China can patrol wherever it wants within that area, since a ‘patrol’ is an obvious way of staking claim to those waters. If we reject China’s claim, Chinese ships still have the right to sail through the South China Sea, provided they stay out of the 12-mile territorial waters surrounding any islands or rocks owned by the Philippines, or other countries. Active ‘patrols,’ however, would be seen as a statement of ownership, and therefore potentially provocative.
* Is there a way to settle whether China or the Philippines owns the disputed islands? The Philippines has taken the matter to arbitration at the United Nation’s International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. It argues that China’s broad-brush claim to most of the South China Sea is arbitrary and unlawful, since it is based on a vague, broken line drawn around the claimed area, which Beijing has never properly defined. The Philippines says that the line is not recognized under UNCLOS, and that China’s claim therefore has no legal basis. The U.N. court is expected to rule on the case between March and September of this year. However, China has refused to take part in the process, and is unlikely to accept the verdict if it loses.
* So will the dispute just rumble on? And on, and on.
No comments:
Post a Comment