Jardeleza was the solicitor general when the 4,000-page case was filed by the Philippines against China in the arbitral court in 2013.
Advertisement
During the first round, the Philippines, represented by the prestigious law firm Foley Hoag, slammed China’s so-called “salami-slicing” strategy of grabbing maritime territories that belong to the Philippines under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS).
China has been claiming even those areas within the 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zones of other countries, including the Philippines.
The team also made it clear to the court that the Philippines was not asking the tribunal to rule on the sovereignty aspects of the case but only on the entitlements of the claimants to territory in the South China Sea as recognized under Unclos.
Philippine lead counsel Paul Reichler argued that the core of the dispute between the two parties “concerns at its broadest level” their “contrasting views on the source of their maritime entitlements”.
China has controlled the shoal since 2012, following a brief standoff with the Philippines.
BEIJING ” China is urging the Philippines to ditch its attempt to solve South China Sea territorial disputes with an global tribunal and instead negotiate with Beijing directly, following the arbitration panel’s latest request for input from China.
The arbitral tribunal of the PCA conducted the first hearing on the West Philippine Sea dispute at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.
According to the Philippines, the 2002 Declaration, which was signed by China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, “is not a legally binding agreement, a fact that China has recognized on many occasions”.
China, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan have been contesting ownership of the resource-rich South China Sea.
“That is being considered by our legal team”.
Third, that the various maritime features relied upon by China as a basis upon which to assert its claims in the South China Sea are not islands that generate entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
Reviewing the Chinese language text of the Convention, as well as the language of the other five authentic versions – English, French, Spanish, Arabic, and Russian, – the Philippines contended that a “historic bay or title” is “limited to claims in the inshore waters adjacent to the coastline of a State”.
To stake its extensive claim, China is building artificial islands at the seven Philippine reefs in the Spratlys, it is believed to hand the arbitral court a fait accompli in the event of a ruling for the Philippines.
Advertisement
Oral arguments to determine the admissibility and court jurisdiction over the Philippines’ case concluded on Monday. It said that Beijing has until August 17 to comment on the hearing, and that it should make a ruling on the issue this year.
