Does the "West Philippine Sea" Exist in International Law?
As a Bonafide and conscientious Filipino citizen, let me unequivocally state my unwavering allegiance to my country, the Philippines. I am #ProPhilippines, not as a superficial declaration but as a conscious commitment to upholding the nation's interests. However, my advocacy for the Philippines is rooted in a DEEP RESPECT FOR FACTS AND THE TRUTH. I refuse to shy away from the evidence-based stand on issues both domestically and internationally speaking or dismiss uncomfortable realities, for these are the cornerstones of informed decision-making and advocacy.
In addressing sensitive, complex, and multifaceted issues such as the South China Sea (SCS) dispute, which involves multiple claimant states, it is imperative that government policies are grounded in OBJECTIVE FACTS. Distorted narratives or the manipulation of information and FACTS can only serve to weaken our position and credibility on the global stage. Policies anchored on VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE/FACTS provide a sturdy foundation, one that can stand scrutiny, face challenges, weather a storm, and face the tests of time.
Ultimately, sound governance demands the courage to face the truth, however inconvenient it may be. Only by aligning our policies with the UNVARNISHED FACTS can we ensure the protection and advancement of our national interests in an increasingly complex regional and geopolitical context and arena.
Does the "West Philippine Sea" Exist in International Law?
To be brutally frank, there is NO legal entity or officially recognized geopolitical term called "West Philippines" or West Philippines Sea (WPS)” in international law regarding the South China Sea dispute.
West Philippine Sea (WPS) is purely a Philippine domestic term that is NOT recognized internationally. The Philippine government officially adopted the term "West Philippine Sea" in 2012 under Administrative Order No. 29, issued by then-President Benigno Aquino III, to reinforce the country's claim to maritime rights in the SCS under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Hence, this is purely a Philippine invention but NOT internationally recognized.
The term "WPS” is a designation used by the Philippine government to refer to parts of the South China Sea within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as defined under the UNCLOS.
The use of the term "West Philippine Sea," as far as the Philippine government is concerned, reinforces the Philippines' “claims,” BUT DOES NOT CHANGE the international legal status of the disputed waters. While "West Philippine Sea" is an accepted domestic term within the Philippine context by virtue of Administrative Order No. 29, issued by then-President Benigno Aquino III, it is NOT an internationally recognized legal concept in as far as resolving the South China Sea dispute. China, Vietnam, Malaysia, and other claimants and the wider international community DO NOT recognize the term “West Philippines Sea” and continue to use "South China Sea.
Even the 2013 Arbitral Tribunal did not use the term "West Philippine Sea" to refer to the Philippines' claim in the South China Sea dispute. The tribunal used the internationally recognized term "South China Sea" throughout its proceedings and in its final ruling on July 12, 2016.
While the tribunal's ruling affirmed CERTAIN aspects of the Philippines' claims, such as the affirmation of the Philippines' Exclusive Economic Zone rights in SPECIFIC MARITIME AREAS, it adhered to neutral and widely accepted terminology to maintain an impartial legal perspective. This distinction reflects that even the tribunal avoided politically charged terms and focused on the legal interpretation of UNCLOS provisions relevant to the South China Sea dispute.
To note, the waters west of the main Philippine archipelago, which is up to 200 nautical miles from its baseline, is the country's EEZ. The Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) is a group of islands in the Spratly Islands, which is part of the SCS that the Philippines claims. Scarborough Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc) is a contested feature in the SCS claimed by both the Philippines and China.
Under international law, the South China Sea is a large maritime region bordered by several countries, including China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia. It is recognized as an international body of water, with parts of it falling under different national EEZs based on UNCLOS.
What do you mean by Exclusive Economic Zone?:
Moreover, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as defined by UNCLOS, is NOT synonymous with territory, nor does it imply full sovereignty over the designated area. Instead, it confers sovereign rights to a coastal state within a maritime zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from its baseline.
Sovereignty refers to full control and ownership over territory, including the land, airspace, subsoil, and maritime areas within a nation's territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the baseline). Sovereignty grants the state exclusive authority to legislate, govern, and exercise jurisdiction over the area.
“Sovereign Rights” are limited rights granted to a coastal state over its EEZ, specifically for the purposes of Exploring and exploiting natural resources (e.g., fisheries, oil, gas); Managing and conserving resources; Conducting research and economic activities related to the seabed and subsoil. Unlike sovereignty, these rights do not confer ownership of the area. Instead, they grant functional jurisdiction over specific activities.
What’s the Legal Implications of Sovereign Rights?
In the EEZ, other states retain the right to freedom of navigation and overflight, as well as the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, as long as these activities do not interfere with the sovereign rights of the coastal state. Therefore, the coastal state cannot prevent other nations from passing through or flying over its EEZ, unlike within territorial waters. Enforcement actions in the EEZ are limited to protecting sovereign rights and ensuring compliance with relevant laws, particularly regarding resource exploitation.
This distinction is crucial in disputes such as those in the South China Sea, where conflicting claims often blur the line between sovereignty and sovereign rights.
Take note of this, which is very crucial: Coastal states can exercise sovereign rights over resources in their EEZ, BUT CANNOT CLAIM the EEZ as sovereign territory.
The misinterpretation or conflation of these terms often fuels geopolitical tensions, as states assert excessive control over areas that are only subject to their sovereign rights, not sovereignty.
In conclusion, while an EEZ is critical for a coastal state's economic activities, its legal status remains distinct from the concept of territory, where a coastal state has sovereignty over its territory. This nuanced understanding is essential for interpreting maritime laws, resolving disputes, and promoting peaceful coexistence in shared waters.
FACTS and the Truth are bitter pills and hard to swallow, but they are the bedrock of sound governance, essential for crafting policies that endure challenges, weather storms, and stand the test of time.
I hope I have helped shed light on the complexities surrounding the disputed South China Sea. Unfortunately, certain individuals within the current Marcos Jr. administration appear to be sowing confusion among the Filipino public, at times veering dangerously close to spreading misleading or distorted information
.