Defending Philippine Sovereign Rights in the West Philippine Sea

The South China Sea is a vital international waterway with significant trade passing through it annually. It supports major exporting countries like China, Japan, Taiwan, and is crucial for oil imports to Asia. The sea is rich in fisheries and natural gas resources such as methane hydrates, which China is exploring.

Sovereign rights in the South China Sea are contested due to territorial claims over tiny rocks and islands, which can extend a nation's territorial sea. The Hague Tribunal's decision emphasized territorial baselines and historical claims, notably China's historical narrative of ownership for 2,000 years, which was disputed.

China's Nine-Dash Line claim, submitted in 2009, asserts control over most of the South China Sea. This has led to disputes as other nations like Vietnam and Indonesia have formally protested these claims. In 1946, China forcibly took control of key maritime features following Japan's defeat.

China's expansion in the South China Sea accelerated post-World War II, claiming islands like Itu Aba and building military bases on reefs. This assertive stance has caused friction with Southeast Asian nations. The international community remains concerned due to implications for free navigation.

China's provocative stance culminates in its Nine-Dash Line map, treating vast maritime areas as national territory, contrary to international norms. This aggressive posture challenges regional order and has prompted nations to contest China's historical narrative, which is viewed as inaccurate.

Prior to the Tribunal ruling, China's historical claims lacked substantial evidence. Historically, China’s southernmost extent was Hainan, not including contested features. China's aggressive seizures, such as the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal, were timed during periods of regional unrest and vulnerability.

The Tribunal's ruling refuted China's historical claims, affirming that the Spratlys cannot sustain human habitation independently, hence lack an exclusive economic zone. This legitimized the Philippines' maritime entitlements, undermining China's territorial assertions under its Nine-Dash Line.

The ruling highlighted that Scarborough Shoal lacks human habitation viability, thus cannot support an exclusive economic zone. China’s broad claims, including Reed Bank, have no legal standing beyond set maritime limits, reinforcing the Philippines’ sovereign rights under international law.

Despite skepticism about enforcement, the Tribunal's decision is clear: China's Nine-Dash Line has no legal basis in international maritime law. The ruling aligns with global maritime norms, limiting any state's claims beyond the allowable distance from their coastline.

The narrative of China’s historical maritime rights was challenged by ancient maps and evidence, proving China's territorial delineations ended at Hainan Island. This deconstruction of China’s historical narrative emphasizes a false premise which has influenced public perception.

The 1900 Treaty of Washington clarified U.S. possession of islands beyond treaty lines, shaping Philippine claims. The boundaries were informed by historical maps like Murillo Velarde's, which are essential for understanding territorial entitlements established during colonial rule.

Legal assertions were supported by evidence that Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal historically belonged to the Philippines, as illustrated in maps like the 1734 Murillo Velarde. These claims were stronger than China’s, underpinning the Tribunal's ruling on Philippine maritime rights.

After the Tribunal ruling, the South China Sea's status as a global commons was reinforced with areas designated as international waters, allowing free navigation. This aligns with global interests to keep these sea lanes open and is a counter to China’s territorial imperatives.

Global reactions to the Tribunal's ruling included military assertions by the U.S., France, and others, exercising the right to navigate freely under international law, which undermines China's maritime claims. These actions support the Philippines' legal position.

International naval operations, including from the U.S., France, and other nations, assert navigational rights, subtly reinforcing The Hague ruling. The global support highlights the importance of rule-based international systems amidst China's expansive maritime claims.