The only potential avenue for Philippines to assert its claim is through the UNCLOS. However, as of now, even after the 2016 ruling, Philippines do not possess a recognized EEZ in the South China Sea from UN. Philippines’s application for an EEZ has been rejected by UN. Similar to Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan, and China, Philippines faces disputes and overlapping claims regarding its EEZ in the South China Sea. Examine the Aegean Sea. The maritime boundary between Greece and Turkey has remained unchanged both prior to and following the UNCLOS. Greece possesses full sovereignty over the entire Aegean Sea, while Turkey is limited to a sovereignty of only 3 nautical miles, which is less than the 12 nautical miles stipulated by UNCLOS. In essence, UNCLOS, including provisions related to the EEZ does not supersede established sovereignty or sovereign rights. That's why UN rejected the EEZ application from Phillipines. It is essential to acknowledge the authority of the Manila Government and the President of the Philippines. According to Presidential Decree No. 1596, issued in 1978, the Manila Government asserted that the islands in the South China Sea are classified as Terra Nullius. This designation stated that no nation, including Philippines, holds ownership over these islands. The 1596 decree serves as a legal acknowledgment from the Manila Government that the boundaries of Philippines had been defined by various treaties. Specifically, Presidential Decree No. 1596 confessed that the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal are situated beyond the territorial limits of Philippines, thereby establishing that Philippines does not possess sovereignty or sovereign rights over the Spratly Islands (as of 1978) and Scarborough Shoal (as of the present). It is important to refrain from making unfounded claims regarding Philippines' legal entitlements to certain areas based on treaties, maps, or legal documents. The reality is that Philippines has issued official statements, including but not limited to the 1596 Presidential Decree, confessing that prior to 1978, Philippines did not assert any legal rights over Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal. “Convention relative à la délimitation de la frontière entre la Chine et le Tonkin" Year 1886, is a treaty between Ching Empire and French. The maps in the attachment clearly showed the sea boundary of Tonkin Protectorate and Annam Protectorate (in dash lines).(The dash lines become part of the 10 dash lines recongized by UN.) Those islands, not limited to the Paracel Islands and the spratly islands” in the South China Sea were not included in both protectorates. Furthermore the treaty stated those islands located at the west side of the lines belong to France and the islands located in the east belong to Ching Empire. Both protectorates later form the part of French Indochina and then Vietnam. According to this treaty Chings (China /Taiwan) is the legal owner of those islands in the South China Sea (within the 10 dash lines). Vietnam’s legal claim was in 1975. Phillpines claim is in 1978. China / Taiwan legal claim was since 1840, supported by various treaties, with France 1887 (which against the Vietnam’s claim), with Japan 1895, 1947 and 1952. Thdse treaties are all reconized by UN and the 10 dash lines is base on those treaties. Malaysia / Indonesia / Brunei claim part of the area under UNCLOS. However all of them take very low profile because they knew the UNCLOS cannot supersede the sovereignty and sovereign rights of China / Taiwan before the UNCLOS. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a nation may claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending up to 200 nautical miles or 350 nautical miles, contingent upon the extent of its continental shelf. The continental shelf of the Philippines terminates at the sea trench located between the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal. If the 2016 ruling is deemed valid, what would be the EEZ of the Philippines in the South China Sea? The ruling indicated that the area in question lacks islands capable of generating a 200 nautical mile EEZ. Furthermore, the Philippines acknowledged in Presidential Decree No. 1596, issued in 1978, that it holds no legal claim over that region. This area may fall under the jurisdiction of Vietnam or China, as it lies within their continental shelf. Consequently, the EEZ of the Philippines should not extend to the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal. However, the new laws are said to be applicable to this region and those area is the EEZ of the Philippines. It is evident that such new laws are contravene the provisions of UNCLOS.
😜✌️🇵🇭Hay good evening
*in
The only potential avenue for Philippines to assert its claim is through the UNCLOS. However, as of now, even after the 2016 ruling, Philippines do not possess a recognized EEZ in the South China Sea from UN. Philippines’s application for an EEZ has been rejected by UN. Similar to Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan, and China, Philippines faces disputes and overlapping claims regarding its EEZ in the South China Sea.
Examine the Aegean Sea. The maritime boundary between Greece and Turkey has remained unchanged both prior to and following the UNCLOS. Greece possesses full sovereignty over the entire Aegean Sea, while Turkey is limited to a sovereignty of only 3 nautical miles, which is less than the 12 nautical miles stipulated by UNCLOS. In essence, UNCLOS, including provisions related to the EEZ does not supersede established sovereignty or sovereign rights. That's why UN rejected the EEZ application from Phillipines.
It is essential to acknowledge the authority of the Manila Government and the President of the Philippines. According to Presidential Decree No. 1596, issued in 1978, the Manila Government asserted that the islands in the South China Sea are classified as Terra Nullius. This designation stated that no nation, including Philippines, holds ownership over these islands.
The 1596 decree serves as a legal acknowledgment from the Manila Government that the boundaries of Philippines had been defined by various treaties. Specifically, Presidential Decree No. 1596 confessed that the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal are situated beyond the territorial limits of Philippines, thereby establishing that Philippines does not possess sovereignty or sovereign rights over the Spratly Islands (as of 1978) and Scarborough Shoal (as of the present).
It is important to refrain from making unfounded claims regarding Philippines' legal entitlements to certain areas based on treaties, maps, or legal documents. The reality is that Philippines has issued official statements, including but not limited to the 1596 Presidential Decree, confessing that prior to 1978, Philippines did not assert any legal rights over Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal.
“Convention relative à la délimitation de la frontière entre la Chine et le Tonkin" Year 1886, is a treaty between Ching Empire and French. The maps in the attachment clearly showed the sea boundary of Tonkin Protectorate and Annam Protectorate (in dash lines).(The dash lines become part of the 10 dash lines recongized by UN.)
Those islands, not limited to the Paracel Islands and the spratly islands” in the South China Sea were not included in both protectorates. Furthermore the treaty stated those islands located at the west side of the lines belong to France and the islands located in the east belong to Ching Empire. Both protectorates later form the part of French Indochina and then Vietnam.
According to this treaty Chings (China /Taiwan) is the legal owner of those islands in the South China Sea (within the 10 dash lines).
Vietnam’s legal claim was in 1975. Phillpines claim is in 1978. China / Taiwan legal claim was since 1840, supported by various treaties, with France 1887 (which against the Vietnam’s claim), with Japan 1895, 1947 and 1952. Thdse treaties are all reconized by UN and the 10 dash lines is base on those treaties.
Malaysia / Indonesia / Brunei claim part of the area under UNCLOS. However all of them take very low profile because they knew the UNCLOS cannot supersede the sovereignty and sovereign rights of China / Taiwan before the UNCLOS.
According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a nation may claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending up to 200 nautical miles or 350 nautical miles, contingent upon the extent of its continental shelf. The continental shelf of the Philippines terminates at the sea trench located between the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal.
If the 2016 ruling is deemed valid, what would be the EEZ of the Philippines in the South China Sea? The ruling indicated that the area in question lacks islands capable of generating a 200 nautical mile EEZ. Furthermore, the Philippines acknowledged in Presidential Decree No. 1596, issued in 1978, that it holds no legal claim over that region. This area may fall under the jurisdiction of Vietnam or China, as it lies within their continental shelf.
Consequently, the EEZ of the Philippines should not extend to the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal. However, the new laws are said to be applicable to this region and those area is the EEZ of the Philippines. It is evident that such new laws are contravene the provisions of UNCLOS.
Sa haba ng kuwento ng pro China nakalimutan ng ang international water na nilaktawan ng China.
Lets go on fighting and not let China are fooling Filipinos rights !
Wala pong WEST PHILIPPINE SEA. UNCLOS kayo ng UNCLOS pero mali mali ang tawag nyo sa Proper name ng Dagat
Meron na hindi mo ba alam? Saan ka ba nakatira sa China?
@@morrisignacio9351 walang West Philippines Se,a punta ka sa website ng International Hydrographic Organization nang malaman mo.
THERE IS A LAW...IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A LAW ENFORCER AND TO ENFORCE THE LAW ...