Batuhan: From Empire to Order: How the Sea Learned the Rule of Law
The West Philippine Sea is a topic of intense debate, yet its complexities often go unnoticed. Amidst the clamor of social media, where emotions run high, it's easy to overlook the legal foundation that underpins the Philippines' stance. The key to understanding this lies in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a powerful legal framework that has shaped modern international maritime law.
UNCLOS, signed by 168 countries and in force since 1994, is a beacon of order in the vast oceans. It replaced the archaic 'first discovery' principle with a more structured approach, defining territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves based on measurable geography, not ancient maps. This convention grants every coastal state 200 nautical miles of economic rights from its baseline, a significant shift from the past.
The 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling in the Philippines' favor against China was a landmark moment. It declared that China's 'nine-dash line' lacked legal basis under UNCLOS and affirmed the Philippines' sovereign rights within its Exclusive Economic Zone. The tribunal also highlighted China's violation of these rights by obstructing Filipino fishers and damaging coral reefs around the Scarborough Shoal. This ruling sent a global message: the sea is not a relic of the past but a realm governed by modern law.
China's disregard for the ruling is a testament to the strength of UNCLOS. Its authority is not built on force but on the collective will of nations embracing order over ambition. Time and again, this law has prevailed over historical arguments. In the Somalia v. Kenya case (2021), the International Court of Justice disregarded colonial-era boundaries, drawing a new maritime line based on UNCLOS principles. Similarly, in Ghana v. Côte d’Ivoire (2017), the tribunal applied UNCLOS methods, prioritizing equidistance and relevant circumstances over outdated British charts. Even in Mauritius v. Maldives (2023) and Nicaragua v. Colombia (2023), historical maps were set aside in favor of modern legal principles.
The South China Sea Arbitration followed the same logic. The tribunal emphasized that 'historic rights' cannot coexist with UNCLOS-defined maritime zone limits. Ancient maps, while rich in exploration tales, no longer dictate sea borders. This is why the Philippines' legal claim is not a colonial legacy but a product of a modern treaty, shaped by Filipino intellect and diplomacy.
Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, a key figure in the Philippine delegation to the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, played a pivotal role in the archipelagic doctrine now embedded in UNCLOS. His 1982 work, 'The Philippines and the Law of the Sea,' envisioned archipelagic nations as unified maritime states, not as scattered islands at the mercy of others. This vision now safeguards the Philippines.
When critics dismiss the Murillo Velarde map as irrelevant or a 'hoax,' they overlook the broader context. The debate is not about who first named reefs or charted waters; it's about adherence to the law agreed upon by the international community. The sea may remember its past, but it now flows under the principles of justice, measured not by might but by distance, geography, and consent. This is the quiet yet powerful force of UNCLOS: it ends the era of empires and ushers in the rule of law.
