EastSea
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 3,787
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
They are chinese, personnel in staff of Xin Hua agency, they do their job with false flag to cheating other people on PDF, bro.
China starts "combat ready" patrols in disputed seas
- Thread starter The Great One
- Start date
They are chinese, personnel in staff of Xin Hua agency, they do their job with false flag to cheating other people on PDF, bro.
ahfatzia
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,521
- Reaction score
- 0
No body take that serious anymore and besides, unlike Philippines, Singapore is a small nation so the more friend the better. At least we never bully a big nation and then go crying daddy for helps.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-ask-u-s-spy-planes-over-south-china-sea.html
Fil Pacifist
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
You are generalizing that the Philippine media is biased against China and yet I showed you an article from a Philippine newspaper praising China so your argument is already busted. So do you want me to post more pro-China articles from Philippine media?
Thanks Bro. I am just disproving his idea that free media is what misleads the people.
Fil Pacifist
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
I wonder if the ethnic Indians and Malaysians in your country share the same support to your Chinese motherland.
As a small country like yours, we are intelligently playing whatever cards we have left. We admit that we cannot defend what is ours, we cannot even effectively monitor our EEZ, so we are seeking the help of our ally. We are slowling developing our minimum credible defense force but while we are not there yet, we need any assistance we can get from our allies.
ahfatzia
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,521
- Reaction score
- 0
Support my ancestral mother land is my personal pride and have nothing to do with Singapore. A man has to be loyal to his root too, you know.
Singapore is an ally and friend with almost all countries, and hopefully, enemy to none. We like to deal with every international incident diplomatically and do not shoot from the hip.
The bold part shows you're still living in delusions. Your country did not play the card well and you do not call buffs without both cards and chips. Even a little kid can see through Aquino's lame acts.
p3avi8tor69
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I never read your media as you claimed. Unfortunately, it comes up in google news.
It will take you and your country a few decades to achieve a "minimum credible defense force". You have an air force that is more of a farce. You don't have the capability to operate and maintain 4th generation equipment. Your coast guard purchased 4 56m Tennix patrol boats 10 years ago, yet, the ships have fallen to disrepair due to lack of maintenance and that none of these ships can achieve full operating capacity. My question is, how can you possibly afford to maintain the 40 year cutter that we gave you recently and how can you afford to have 4th generation MRFs? Feel free to correct me, but be mindful of your frequent use of foul language as it reflects on your credibility and maturity or lack there of.
p3avi8tor69
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I tend to disagree. The Obama administration will view such an act as needless provocation by the Philippines. Obama will find every excuse to not get involved. I see us only getting in to the mix, if the Chinese does something incredibly dumb such as bombing mainland Philippines or sinking their entire Navy. If China sinks 1 to 3 ships, Obama will howl, protest and threaten but not much will happen. But of course I could be wrong since its election time and big Barack want's to be seen as Mr. tough guy.
WuMaoCleverbot
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 14, 2012
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Philippine position on Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) and the waters within its vicinity
Department of Foreign Affairs
April 18, 2012
Background on the Bajo de Masinloc (Panatag) incident
Bajo de Masinloc is an integral part of the Philippine territory. It is part of the Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales. It is located 124 nautical miles west of Zambales and is within the 200 nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Philippine Continental Shelf.
A Philippine Navy Surveillance aircraft monitored eight Chinese fishing vessels anchored inside the Bajo de Masinloc (Panatag Shoal) on Sunday, April 8, 2012, in the conduct of its maritime patrols and its enforcement of the Philippine Fisheries Code and marine environment laws. On April 10, 2012, the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, in accordance with the established Rules of Engagement, dispatched an inspection team that reported that large amounts of illegally collected corals, giant clams, and live sharks were found in the compartments of these fishing vessels.
The actions of the Chinese fishing vessels are a serious violation of the Philippines’ sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction. The poaching of endangered marine resources is in violation of the Fisheries Code and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES).
Basis of Philippine sovereignty over Bajo de Masinloc and the waters within its vicinity
Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) is not an island. Bajo de Masinloc is also not part of the Spratlys.
Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) is a ring-shaped coral reef, which has several rocks encircling a lagoon. About five of these rocks are above water during high tide. Of these five rocks, some are about 3 meters high above water. The rest of the rocks and reefs are below water during high tide.
Bajo de Masinloc’s (Scarborough Shoal) chain of reefs and rocks is about 124 NM from the nearest coast of Luzon and approximately 472 NM from the nearest coast of China. Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately along latitude 15°08′N and longitude 117°45′E. The rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are situated north of the Spratlys.
Obviously, therefore, the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is also within the 200-NM EEZ and 200-NM continental shelf (CS) of the Philippines.
A distinction has to be made between the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc and the larger body of water and continental shelf where the said geological features are situated. The rights or nature of rights of the Philippines over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are different from that which it exercises over the larger body of water and continental shelf.
The Philippines exercises full sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, and sovereign rights over the waters and continental shelf where the said rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are situated.
The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is distinct from that of its sovereign rights over the larger body of water and continental shelf.
A. The rock features of Bajo de Masinloc: Basis of Philippine sovereignty under Public International Law
The rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories.
The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. The matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.
Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200-NM EEZ or CS under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the Philippines necessarily exercise sovereign rights over its EEZ and CS, nonetheless, the reason why the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories is anchored on other principles of public international law.
As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a modality for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise of jurisdiction. Indeed, in that particular case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of “effective exercise of jurisdiction,” although the said island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the U.S. in the Treaty of Paris.
In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence.
The name Bajo de Masinloc (translated as “under Masinloc”
itself identifies the shoal as a particular political subdivision of the Philippine province of Zambales, known as Masinloc.
One of the earliest known and most accurate maps of the area, named Carta Hydrographical y Chorographica De Las Yslas Filipinas by Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, SJ, and published in 1734, included Bajo de Masinloc as part of Zambales.
The name Bajo de Masinloc was a name given to the shoal by the Spanish colonizers. In 1792, another map drawn by the Alejandro Malaspina expedition and published in 1808 in Madrid, Spain, also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Philippine territory. This map showed the route of the Malaspina expedition to and around the shoal. It was reproduced in the Atlas of the 1939 Philippine Census.
The Mapa General, Islas Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila, published in 1990 by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, also included Bajo de Masinloc as part of the Philippines.
Philippine flags have been erected on some of the islets of the shoal, including a flag raised on an 8.3-meter high flagpole in 1965 and another Philippine flag raised by Congressmen Roque Ablan and Jose Yap in 1997. In 1965, the Philippines also built and operated a small lighthouse in one of the islets in the shoal. In 1992, the Philippine Navy rehabilitated the lighthouse and reported it to the International Maritime Organization for publication in the List of Lights (currently, this lighthouse is not operational).
Bajo de Masinloc was also used as an impact range by Philippine and U.S. Naval Forces stationed in Subic Bay in Zambales for defense purposes. The Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources, together with the University of the Philippines, has also been conducting scientific, topographic, and marine studies in the shoal. Filipino fishermen have always considered it as their fishing grounds, owing to their proximity to the coastal towns and areas of Southwest Luzon.
In 2009, when the Philippines passed an amended Archipelagic Baselines Law that is fully consistent with the Law of the Sea, Bajo de Masinloc’s was classified under the “Regime of Islands” consistent with the Law of the Sea.
Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as “Regime of Islands” under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
Comments on Chinese claims
Question:
But what about the historical claim of China over Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal)? Does China have a much superior right over Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) on the basis of its so-called historical claim? China is claiming Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) based on historical arguments, claiming it to have been discovered by the Yuan Dynasty? China is also claiming that Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) has been reflected on various official Chinese Maps and has been named by China in various official documents?
Answer:
Chinese assertion based on historical claims must be substantiated by a clear historic title. It should be noted that under public international law, historical claims are not historical titles. A claim by itself, including historical claim, could not be a basis for acquiring a territory.
Under international law, the modes of acquiring a territory are: discovery, effective occupation, prescription, cession, and accretion. Also, under public international law, for a historical claim to mature into a historical title, a mere showing of long usage is not enough.
Other criteria have to be satisfied such as that the usage must be open, continuous, adverse or, in the concept of an owner, peaceful and acquiesced by other states. Mere silence by other states to one’s claim is not acquiescence under international law. Acquiescence must be affirmative such that other states recognize such claim as a right on the part of the claimant that other states ought to respect as a matter of duty. There is no indication that the international community have acquiesced to China’s so-called historical claim.
In relation to name-giving and maps, name-giving (or names in general), and placing of land features on maps, these are also not bases in determining sovereignty. In international case law relating to questions of sovereignty and ownership of land features, names and maps are not significant factors in the determination of international tribunals’ determination of sovereignty.
Question:
What about China claiming Bajo de Masinloc as traditional fishing waters of Chinese fishermen?
Answer:
Under international law, fishing rights is not a mode of acquiring sovereignty (or even sovereign rights) over an area. Neither could it be construed that the act of fishing by Chinese fishermen is a sovereign act of a state nor can be considered as a display of state authority. Fishing is an economic activity done by private individuals. For occupation to be effective, there has to be clear demonstration of the intention and will of a state to act as sovereign, and there has to be a peaceful and continuous display of state authority, which the Philippines has consistently demonstrated.
Besides, when UNCLOS took effect, it has precisely appropriated various maritime zones to coastal states, thus eliminating so-called historical waters and justly appropriating the resources of the seas to coastal states to which said seas are appurtenant. “Traditional fishing rights” is in fact mentioned only in Article 51 of UNCLOS, which calls for archipelagic states to respect such rights, if such exist, in its archipelagic waters.
It should also be noted that, in this particular case, the activities of these so-called fishermen can be hardly described as fishing. The evidence culled by the Philippine Navy showed clearly that these are poaching activities involving the harvesting of endangered marine species, which is illegal in the Philippines and illegal under international law, specifically the CITES.
B. Waters outside and around Bajo de Masinloc: Basis of Philippine sovereign rights under UNCLOS
As earlier indicated, there is a distinction between the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc and the waters within its vicinity. The question of who owns the rocks is a matter governed by the principles of public international law relating to modalities for acquiring territories. On the other hand, the extent of its adjacent waters is governed by UNCLOS. Likewise, the waters outside of the maritime area of Bajo de Masinloc are also governed by UNCLOS.
As noted, there are only about five rocks in Bajo de Masinloc that are above water during high tide. The rest are below water during high tide. Accordingly, these rocks have only 12 NM maximum territorial waters under Article 121 of UNCLOS. Because the Philippines has sovereignty over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, it follows that it has also sovereignty over their 12-NM territorial waters.
Question:
But what about the waters outside of the 12-NM territorial waters of the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc? What is the nature of these waters including the continental shelves? Which state has sovereign rights over them?
Answer:
As noted, Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately at latitude 15°08′N and longitude 117°45′E. It is approximately 124 NM off the nearest coast of the Philippine province of Zambales. Clearly, the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are within the 200-NM EEZ and CS of the Philippine archipelago.
Therefore, the waters and continental shelves outside of the 12-NM territorial waters of the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc appropriately belong to the 200-NM EEZ and CS of the Philippine archipelago. As such, the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore and exploit the resources within the said areas to the exclusion of other countries under UNCLOS. Part V of UNCLOS specifically provides that the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage resources, whether living or nonliving, in this area.
Although, other states have the right of freedom of navigation over the said areas, such rights could not be exercised to the detriment of the internationally recognized sovereign rights of the Philippines to explore and exploit the resources in its 200-NM EEZ and CS. To do otherwise would be in violation of international law specifically UNCLOS.
Therefore, the current action of the Chinese surveillance vessels in the said 200-NM EEZ of the Philippines that are law enforcement in nature is obviously inconsistent with its right of freedom of navigation and in violation of the sovereign rights of the Philippines under UNCLOS.
It must also be noted that the Chinese fisherman earlier apprehended by Philippine law enforcement agents may have poached not on Bajo de Masinloc per se, but likely on the EEZ of the Philippines. Therefore, these poachers have likewise violated the sovereign rights of the Philippines under UNCLOS.
Presence of the Philippine-registered archeological vessel
The Philippine National Museum has been undertaking an official marine archaeological survey in the vicinity of Bajo de Masinloc.
The archaeological survey is being conducted by the Philippine National Museum, which is on board the Philippine motor yacht M/Y Saranggani.
Chinese maritime surveillance vessels have been harassing the M/Y Saranggani. The Philippines has strongly protested these harassments by the Chinese side. Said actions by the Chinese vessels are in violation of the sovereign right and jurisdiction of the Philippines to conduct marine research or studies in its EEZ.
Endangered species found in Chinese fishing vessels
The Philippine Navy, during a routine sovereignty patrol, saw eight fishing vessels moored at the Bajo de Masinloc on April 10. The Philippine Navy inspected these vessels and discovered that they were Chinese fishing vessels and on board were illegally obtained endangered corals and giant clams in violation of the Philippine Fisheries Code.
The Philippines is a staunch advocate in protecting its marine environment from any form of illegal fishing and poaching. It is a state party to the CITES and Convention on Biological Diversity.
This illicit activity has also undermined the work of the Philippine government as a member of the Coral Triangle Initiative.
The coral colonies in Bajo de Masinloc have been in existence for centuries.
Current situation
The Philippines is committed to the process of consultations with China toward a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the situation.
As the DFA works toward a diplomatic solution, the Philippine Coast Guard is present in the area and is continuing to enforce relevant Philippine laws.
http://www.gov.ph/2012/04/18/philip...-masinloc-and-the-waters-within-its-vicinity/
Department of Foreign Affairs
April 18, 2012
Background on the Bajo de Masinloc (Panatag) incident
Bajo de Masinloc is an integral part of the Philippine territory. It is part of the Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales. It is located 124 nautical miles west of Zambales and is within the 200 nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Philippine Continental Shelf.
A Philippine Navy Surveillance aircraft monitored eight Chinese fishing vessels anchored inside the Bajo de Masinloc (Panatag Shoal) on Sunday, April 8, 2012, in the conduct of its maritime patrols and its enforcement of the Philippine Fisheries Code and marine environment laws. On April 10, 2012, the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, in accordance with the established Rules of Engagement, dispatched an inspection team that reported that large amounts of illegally collected corals, giant clams, and live sharks were found in the compartments of these fishing vessels.
The actions of the Chinese fishing vessels are a serious violation of the Philippines’ sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction. The poaching of endangered marine resources is in violation of the Fisheries Code and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES).
Basis of Philippine sovereignty over Bajo de Masinloc and the waters within its vicinity
Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) is not an island. Bajo de Masinloc is also not part of the Spratlys.
Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) is a ring-shaped coral reef, which has several rocks encircling a lagoon. About five of these rocks are above water during high tide. Of these five rocks, some are about 3 meters high above water. The rest of the rocks and reefs are below water during high tide.
Bajo de Masinloc’s (Scarborough Shoal) chain of reefs and rocks is about 124 NM from the nearest coast of Luzon and approximately 472 NM from the nearest coast of China. Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately along latitude 15°08′N and longitude 117°45′E. The rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are situated north of the Spratlys.
Obviously, therefore, the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is also within the 200-NM EEZ and 200-NM continental shelf (CS) of the Philippines.
A distinction has to be made between the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc and the larger body of water and continental shelf where the said geological features are situated. The rights or nature of rights of the Philippines over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are different from that which it exercises over the larger body of water and continental shelf.
The Philippines exercises full sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, and sovereign rights over the waters and continental shelf where the said rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are situated.
The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is distinct from that of its sovereign rights over the larger body of water and continental shelf.
A. The rock features of Bajo de Masinloc: Basis of Philippine sovereignty under Public International Law
The rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories.
The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. The matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.
Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200-NM EEZ or CS under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the Philippines necessarily exercise sovereign rights over its EEZ and CS, nonetheless, the reason why the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories is anchored on other principles of public international law.
As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a modality for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise of jurisdiction. Indeed, in that particular case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of “effective exercise of jurisdiction,” although the said island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the U.S. in the Treaty of Paris.
In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence.
The name Bajo de Masinloc (translated as “under Masinloc”
itself identifies the shoal as a particular political subdivision of the Philippine province of Zambales, known as Masinloc.One of the earliest known and most accurate maps of the area, named Carta Hydrographical y Chorographica De Las Yslas Filipinas by Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, SJ, and published in 1734, included Bajo de Masinloc as part of Zambales.
The name Bajo de Masinloc was a name given to the shoal by the Spanish colonizers. In 1792, another map drawn by the Alejandro Malaspina expedition and published in 1808 in Madrid, Spain, also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Philippine territory. This map showed the route of the Malaspina expedition to and around the shoal. It was reproduced in the Atlas of the 1939 Philippine Census.
The Mapa General, Islas Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila, published in 1990 by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, also included Bajo de Masinloc as part of the Philippines.
Philippine flags have been erected on some of the islets of the shoal, including a flag raised on an 8.3-meter high flagpole in 1965 and another Philippine flag raised by Congressmen Roque Ablan and Jose Yap in 1997. In 1965, the Philippines also built and operated a small lighthouse in one of the islets in the shoal. In 1992, the Philippine Navy rehabilitated the lighthouse and reported it to the International Maritime Organization for publication in the List of Lights (currently, this lighthouse is not operational).
Bajo de Masinloc was also used as an impact range by Philippine and U.S. Naval Forces stationed in Subic Bay in Zambales for defense purposes. The Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources, together with the University of the Philippines, has also been conducting scientific, topographic, and marine studies in the shoal. Filipino fishermen have always considered it as their fishing grounds, owing to their proximity to the coastal towns and areas of Southwest Luzon.
In 2009, when the Philippines passed an amended Archipelagic Baselines Law that is fully consistent with the Law of the Sea, Bajo de Masinloc’s was classified under the “Regime of Islands” consistent with the Law of the Sea.
Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as “Regime of Islands” under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
Comments on Chinese claims
Question:
But what about the historical claim of China over Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal)? Does China have a much superior right over Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) on the basis of its so-called historical claim? China is claiming Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) based on historical arguments, claiming it to have been discovered by the Yuan Dynasty? China is also claiming that Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) has been reflected on various official Chinese Maps and has been named by China in various official documents?
Answer:
Chinese assertion based on historical claims must be substantiated by a clear historic title. It should be noted that under public international law, historical claims are not historical titles. A claim by itself, including historical claim, could not be a basis for acquiring a territory.
Under international law, the modes of acquiring a territory are: discovery, effective occupation, prescription, cession, and accretion. Also, under public international law, for a historical claim to mature into a historical title, a mere showing of long usage is not enough.
Other criteria have to be satisfied such as that the usage must be open, continuous, adverse or, in the concept of an owner, peaceful and acquiesced by other states. Mere silence by other states to one’s claim is not acquiescence under international law. Acquiescence must be affirmative such that other states recognize such claim as a right on the part of the claimant that other states ought to respect as a matter of duty. There is no indication that the international community have acquiesced to China’s so-called historical claim.
In relation to name-giving and maps, name-giving (or names in general), and placing of land features on maps, these are also not bases in determining sovereignty. In international case law relating to questions of sovereignty and ownership of land features, names and maps are not significant factors in the determination of international tribunals’ determination of sovereignty.
Question:
What about China claiming Bajo de Masinloc as traditional fishing waters of Chinese fishermen?
Answer:
Under international law, fishing rights is not a mode of acquiring sovereignty (or even sovereign rights) over an area. Neither could it be construed that the act of fishing by Chinese fishermen is a sovereign act of a state nor can be considered as a display of state authority. Fishing is an economic activity done by private individuals. For occupation to be effective, there has to be clear demonstration of the intention and will of a state to act as sovereign, and there has to be a peaceful and continuous display of state authority, which the Philippines has consistently demonstrated.
Besides, when UNCLOS took effect, it has precisely appropriated various maritime zones to coastal states, thus eliminating so-called historical waters and justly appropriating the resources of the seas to coastal states to which said seas are appurtenant. “Traditional fishing rights” is in fact mentioned only in Article 51 of UNCLOS, which calls for archipelagic states to respect such rights, if such exist, in its archipelagic waters.
It should also be noted that, in this particular case, the activities of these so-called fishermen can be hardly described as fishing. The evidence culled by the Philippine Navy showed clearly that these are poaching activities involving the harvesting of endangered marine species, which is illegal in the Philippines and illegal under international law, specifically the CITES.
B. Waters outside and around Bajo de Masinloc: Basis of Philippine sovereign rights under UNCLOS
As earlier indicated, there is a distinction between the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc and the waters within its vicinity. The question of who owns the rocks is a matter governed by the principles of public international law relating to modalities for acquiring territories. On the other hand, the extent of its adjacent waters is governed by UNCLOS. Likewise, the waters outside of the maritime area of Bajo de Masinloc are also governed by UNCLOS.
As noted, there are only about five rocks in Bajo de Masinloc that are above water during high tide. The rest are below water during high tide. Accordingly, these rocks have only 12 NM maximum territorial waters under Article 121 of UNCLOS. Because the Philippines has sovereignty over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, it follows that it has also sovereignty over their 12-NM territorial waters.
Question:
But what about the waters outside of the 12-NM territorial waters of the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc? What is the nature of these waters including the continental shelves? Which state has sovereign rights over them?
Answer:
As noted, Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately at latitude 15°08′N and longitude 117°45′E. It is approximately 124 NM off the nearest coast of the Philippine province of Zambales. Clearly, the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are within the 200-NM EEZ and CS of the Philippine archipelago.
Therefore, the waters and continental shelves outside of the 12-NM territorial waters of the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc appropriately belong to the 200-NM EEZ and CS of the Philippine archipelago. As such, the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore and exploit the resources within the said areas to the exclusion of other countries under UNCLOS. Part V of UNCLOS specifically provides that the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage resources, whether living or nonliving, in this area.
Although, other states have the right of freedom of navigation over the said areas, such rights could not be exercised to the detriment of the internationally recognized sovereign rights of the Philippines to explore and exploit the resources in its 200-NM EEZ and CS. To do otherwise would be in violation of international law specifically UNCLOS.
Therefore, the current action of the Chinese surveillance vessels in the said 200-NM EEZ of the Philippines that are law enforcement in nature is obviously inconsistent with its right of freedom of navigation and in violation of the sovereign rights of the Philippines under UNCLOS.
It must also be noted that the Chinese fisherman earlier apprehended by Philippine law enforcement agents may have poached not on Bajo de Masinloc per se, but likely on the EEZ of the Philippines. Therefore, these poachers have likewise violated the sovereign rights of the Philippines under UNCLOS.
Presence of the Philippine-registered archeological vessel
The Philippine National Museum has been undertaking an official marine archaeological survey in the vicinity of Bajo de Masinloc.
The archaeological survey is being conducted by the Philippine National Museum, which is on board the Philippine motor yacht M/Y Saranggani.
Chinese maritime surveillance vessels have been harassing the M/Y Saranggani. The Philippines has strongly protested these harassments by the Chinese side. Said actions by the Chinese vessels are in violation of the sovereign right and jurisdiction of the Philippines to conduct marine research or studies in its EEZ.
Endangered species found in Chinese fishing vessels
The Philippine Navy, during a routine sovereignty patrol, saw eight fishing vessels moored at the Bajo de Masinloc on April 10. The Philippine Navy inspected these vessels and discovered that they were Chinese fishing vessels and on board were illegally obtained endangered corals and giant clams in violation of the Philippine Fisheries Code.
The Philippines is a staunch advocate in protecting its marine environment from any form of illegal fishing and poaching. It is a state party to the CITES and Convention on Biological Diversity.
This illicit activity has also undermined the work of the Philippine government as a member of the Coral Triangle Initiative.
The coral colonies in Bajo de Masinloc have been in existence for centuries.
Current situation
The Philippines is committed to the process of consultations with China toward a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the situation.
As the DFA works toward a diplomatic solution, the Philippine Coast Guard is present in the area and is continuing to enforce relevant Philippine laws.
http://www.gov.ph/2012/04/18/philip...-masinloc-and-the-waters-within-its-vicinity/
bdslph
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,746
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
What China is doing is totally baseless
PH Navy has to be come stronger and includes the air force
PH should buy and built there own navy ships (which they are doing)
the world is with PH in this agenda , every body know PH is right and China is wrong
i fully support PH, but PH should avoid the USA , i want to see PH to take more responsibility and make face to face to China
DONT SCREW with PHILIPPINES they may be weak but if they bit you then there is the problem
Philippines is better then China in many ways
PH Navy has to be come stronger and includes the air force
PH should buy and built there own navy ships (which they are doing)
the world is with PH in this agenda , every body know PH is right and China is wrong
i fully support PH, but PH should avoid the USA , i want to see PH to take more responsibility and make face to face to China
DONT SCREW with PHILIPPINES they may be weak but if they bit you then there is the problem
Philippines is better then China in many ways
Fil Pacifist
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
That is your opinion and I respect that. But we cannot just turn a blind eye while somebody else is stealing what is obviously ours. The first country that wants to resolve this diplomatically is ours but China does not want to go to ITLOS. How can you negotiate to a country that asserts "undisputable sovereignity" to the whole South China Sea and would resort to military action to get what it wants? The MDT is the only remaining card that we have, aside from worldwide condemnation of China if it takes Philippine held territory by force. Whether America will honor the MDT or not remains to be seen but we will not let our guard down.
It's a waste of time arguing with a double-faced false flagger.
ahfatzia
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,521
- Reaction score
- 0
China gave Aquino options at the very beginning but he took the extreme opposite route. Like an amateur he repeatedly pushing China into a corner and leave her no option but to take the Scarborough Shoal once and for all. No need to bring the Americans into this dispute because China wouldn't do what she does if she doesn't have ways to counter them.
It's Aquino that fails the Filipinos not vice versa.
WuMaoCleverbot
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 14, 2012
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
The fact that there were bilateral talks (which is FAILING obviously as NO ONE tends to give way), the next civilized/educated/diplomatic/ legal step is to EXHAUST AVAILABLE LEGAL MEANS.
So having read a lot about the issue, provided neither of the 2 nations would give way, am I right to assume that China would rather wage WAR than exhaust available educated/diplomatic/legal/civilized means(UN)? Isn't it a barbaric mindset that China rather wage bullying/intimidation than battle of wits on legal grounds with neutral arbitration?
Honestly, if the main idea of not bringing it to court is "China has nothing to gain but everything lose" while "Philippines has everything to gain but nothing to lose" is rubbish. China is so confident Scarbrough Shoal is theirs and can overwhelmingly prove it legally before UN anytime anyday, so why even entertain every ounce of fear on the above idea? Likewise it's the perfect opportunity to shut other claimants up, and sinking all the stubborn trespassing ships is now justifiable. Spare us the bollocks on the fear of not having neutral arbitration before UN. If one has lost much faith in UN, by all means LEAVE and ISOLATE itself from the rest of the diplomatic world!
If your grandpapa get crazy and kill people, will you help him to hide and kill more man ? Or you advise him to stop. Loyal to your root does not mean to support it by all means. If you are educated, you have to realize what is right and what is wrong. If you support your root by all means you will be kicked out by the rest of human being.
The main logical of China is : Mine is mine, yours is mine and we share
Is there anything more ridiculous than this kind of logic?
NiceGuy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,569
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Pol Pot(chinese-khmer), Yeng sary (chinese-Vnese) had the same thought with you, and now, you know where they are , right?
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Its not really a matter of discussion. It is clearly stated in the treaty that if military vessels are subject to an armed attack, the US will get involved (though presumably the Philippines has to request involvement first).
Either the US gets involved should the Philippines request it or it abrogates the treaty, no real middle-ground.
Trying to do legal cartwheels around actually getting involved after an armed attack on Philippine naval vessels escorting fishermen to the shoal is simply designated as the latter.
Sinking 3 military ships is an act of war.
Similar threads
