Here's my reply since I'm into this topic preparing my daughter for an assigned debate in school!
Tensions in the South China Sea have existed for decades. We know why, and it's nothing new. Social media is at the forefront of supplying us with information to keep us up-to-date. As a result, everyone is free to react to what Baerbock implies, or even to jump to conclusions.
Tensions at SCS are unavoidable because there is still a disagreement with China, and it is not limited to the Philippines. Both parties are using this strategy to demonstrate their political positions. In their different ways, China and the Philippines are asserting their sovereignty. And both are adamant in their stance. Even with these clashes on and off the water (via media), they are still trying to find solutions. However, nothing has worked yet.
Our adversary, China, does not agree with the arbitration case that we won - as crazy as it may seem. As a result, they continue to use "gray zone" techniques just to frighten us since they genuinely believe in their U-shaped zone (as their historical area or territorial extension) whether we agree or not. If we were in their shoes, we would have done it harshly since the other party is claiming our territory - see the point? Now going back, we adhere to international law in our EEZ as provided by UNCLOS. International law does not take precedence and there is no international government to enforce it. International law is based on the consent of states and compliance is often voluntary. That is correct. Imposing the rule of law in international relations is challenging. So international disputes are resolved through diplomatic means, negotiations, or arbitration, while others may escalate into conflicts (which we want to prevent). Even the United States has not signed many treaties, including the LOS. Thus, state consent is important. The Senate, Congress, and the Courts are all involved. By definition, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea can only establish a comprehensive regime of law and order throughout the world's oceans and seas, establishing laws governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. They can only help resolve disputes in the same way that the UN does peacekeeping. Therefore, it is up to the state involved to address them to avoid serious military action.
There is no conclusive answer to this debate because different countries' interests and viewpoints on the South China Sea issues differ. Many experts, however, suggest the following plausible solutions: putting aside the sovereignty disputes and jointly developing the resources in the area, applying the principle of "what you have is what you keep", which means each claimant would keep what it currently occupies and drop its claims to the other features, negotiating a Code of Conduct among the claimants that would establish rules and norms for managing the disputes and preventing escalation, seeking a cooperative management regime that focuses on functional cooperation and environmental protection, rather than dividing up the waters and resources - to name a few. The catch here is, will our Constitution allow it?
The
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now. implies that the
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post.
Log in or register now. is not solely for the sovereignty of coastal states. Though it specifically states that the coastal state has "sovereign rights" to explore and exploit natural resources in the EEZ, other states also have rights and freedoms in the zone, including navigation, overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea. Other governments, on the other hand, must respect the coastal state's rights and duties and comply with its laws and regulations in the EEZ, as long as they are consistent with the Law of the Sea Convention and other standards of international law. According to international law, the Philippines has no "sovereignty" and only "sovereign rights" over its EEZ unless it falls within "territorial seas". Nevertheless, we still conform with LOS.
The Philippine (30-year-old) Constitution and Republic Acts regarding the EEZ have become a stumbling block in dealing with efforts to reduce tensions with China. You've heard the news: "Joint Efforts in the EEZ are prohibited, and it's unconstitutional"! Many tried but failed. They are aware of it, but it is up to our government to have the courage to revise our domestic laws to find a fix. Let's face it, standard procedures will not work with China, so we must try and adapt to the times. We hope that PBB's "paradigm shift" approach will signal a positive change in dealing with China together with the rest of the claimants at SCS - our ASEAN neighbors. I'm sure China has its view in assessing the situation, but should also fit our terms. The US will just portray us as our 3rd-party bodyguards and ambassadors to maintain stability in the area. Fingers crossed! He he.
Now send this message to Baerbock!
