{"id":65810,"date":"2015-11-26T22:06:51","date_gmt":"2015-11-27T04:06:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=65810"},"modified":"2015-11-26T22:24:05","modified_gmt":"2015-11-27T04:24:05","slug":"ph-chinas-claim-in-the-west-phil-sea-hopeless-indefensible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2015\/11\/26\/ph-chinas-claim-in-the-west-phil-sea-hopeless-indefensible\/","title":{"rendered":"PH: China\u2019s claim in the West Phil Sea \u2018hopeless\u2019, \u2018indefensible\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Andrew<\/a>
Andrew Loewenstein, one of the counsels representing the Philippines, presents oral arguments at The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.
(Photo from Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte’s official Facebook page<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Quoting Andrew Lowenstein, one of the counsels representing the Philippines at The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said yesterday that China\u2019s claim in the West Philippine Sea was \u201chopeless and indefensible.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague heard oral arguments on Wednesday regarding the case filed by the Philippines that aims to clarify its territorial entitlement and appeal China\u2019s claim in the West Philippine Sea, the Philippine Star reported.<\/p>\n

The Hague has a released a bulletin where Loewenstein said that China has no basis to claim historical rights. According to Lane, the artificial islands built by China that they claim as their territories in the West Philippine Sea could not be considered as reference points.<\/p>\n

Philippines\u2019 principal counsel in The Hague, Paul Reichler, said that China\u2019s claim to historical rights that they derived from the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Seas (UNCLOS) \u201cin fact do not exist under the provisions of the convention.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even for the sake of argument that historical claim could exist at the UNCLOS, China could not meet the requirements to prove their claim which is having \u201ca continuous exercise of exclusive control for a long period of time over a specific area.\u201d<\/p>\n

China\u2019s construction of artificial islands in the West Philippine Sea have also destroyed Philippines\u2019 marine resources and have prevented Filipinos from fishing, Loewenstein added.<\/p>\n

\u201cSands discussed China\u2019s interference with the Philippines\u2019 exercise of sovereign rights under the UNCLOS with respect to living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone,\u201d said Valte, citing the bulletin.<\/p>\n

\u201cSands gave as examples several incidents involving service contracts given by the Department of Energy wherein the private companies were prevented from exploration,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn addition, the fishing ban mandated by China\u2019s Ministry of Agriculture covering even areas in the Philippines\u2019 EEZ was also discussed,\u201d the bulletin read.<\/p>\n

Despite persistent appeal from the Philippines to stop, China\u2019s violation of the UNCLOS were \u201cflagrant and persistent\u201d and \u201cthey continue today,\u201d Valte said, citing the bulletin.<\/p>\n

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters in Beijing that China has \u201cindisputable\u201d sovereignty in the South China Sea.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Philippines\u2019 unilateral initiation and obstinate pushing forward of the South China Sea arbitration is a political provocation under the cloak of law,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is in essence not an effort to settle disputes but an attempt to negate China\u2019s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea,\u201d Hong added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Quoting Andrew Lowenstein, one of the counsels representing the Philippines at The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, deputy …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":65811,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[249],"class_list":["post-65810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","tag-rewrite","mauthors-katherine-padilla","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65810","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=65810"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65810\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/65811"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}