{"id":65636,"date":"2015-11-25T07:01:20","date_gmt":"2015-11-25T12:01:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=65636"},"modified":"2016-05-04T01:51:02","modified_gmt":"2016-05-04T05:51:02","slug":"ph-at-the-hague-china-lacks-basis-on-claims-in-disputed-waters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2015\/11\/25\/ph-at-the-hague-china-lacks-basis-on-claims-in-disputed-waters\/","title":{"rendered":"PH at The Hague: China lacks basis on claims in disputed waters"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"The<\/a>
The high-powered Philippine team for the UNCLOS arbitration case being heard by an arbitral tribunal at The Hague has begun presenting the arguments for the Philippine position. (PCDSPO)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA \u2013 During the first day of the hearing on the disputed territories in the South China Sea, the Philippines presented the country\u2019s arguments before the tribunal and stressed China\u2019s lack of basis on its historic claims over reefs in the contested waters.<\/p>\n

Principal counsel Paul Reichler and Andrew Loewenstei pointed out that China\u2019s massive claims were unlawful and beyond their maritime entitlements under the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).<\/p>\n

\u201cMr. Reichler mentioned that China has asserted exclusive rights over the areas covered by the nine-dash line and has deprived the Philippines of fishing and exploration activities,\u201d Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigal Valte said in a Philippine Star report.<\/p>\n

\u201cAndrew Loewenstein argued that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a claim of historic rights can exist after the UNCLOS, China has failed to satisfy the requirements to establish the claim, namely: a continuous exercise of exclusive control for a long period of time over the said area,\u201d Valte added.<\/p>\n

Loewenstein referred to eight historic maps which supported his statement \u2013 all maps did not show China\u2019s nine-dash line.<\/p>\n

China, for their part, reiterated their nonparticipation in the said case filed before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, Netherlands.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur position is crystal clear: we will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration,\u201d Chinese Foreign Ministry Spoeksperson Hong Lei said in a press conference.<\/p>\n

They also asserted that the Philippines breached the bilateral consensus as they filed the case.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn an attempt to negate China\u2019s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, the Philippine side unilaterally initiated the arbitration in breach of bilateral consensus with China and its commitment in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,\u201d Lei added.<\/p>\n

Beijing also claimed that their reclamation activities and construction of facilities in the reclaimed islands were well under their sovereignty and clarified that the reefs were not going to be used for military purposes.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe will also build a moderate amount of necessary defense facilities on some of the islands and reefs which have nothing to do with militarization, target no one and have no impact on the freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea conferred by international law on all countries,\u201d Lei said.<\/p>\n

The first round of oral arguments over the disputed region will last until next week.<\/p>\n

Despite China\u2019s nonparticipation, the Philippines remained \u2018fully prepared to present the country\u2019s case\u2019 before the court and continuously called on countries to respect the rule of law on international waters.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA \u2013 During the first day of the hearing on the disputed territories in the South China Sea, the Philippines …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":54837,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1482,1145,16,95],"tags":[249],"class_list":["post-65636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-breaking","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","tag-rewrite","mauthors-cyra-moraleda","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65636","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65636"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65636\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/54837"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65636"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65636"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65636"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}