The wording of the treaties clearly referred only to the islands and did not specifically refer to the waters within. The year 1928 saw the loss of an island within the treaty lines in favor of the Netherlands. However, the impact of considering all waters within treaty lines as part of national territory, equivalent to land, is not so easily discernible.
However, they did not touch on the legal status of the waters around, between and connecting. The importance of the seas was mentioned only once,26 and only in passing. The upper part again refers to and repeats the formulation of national territory as islands.
In the 1958 and 1960 sessions of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the international community rejected the archipelagic principles proposed by the Philippine delegation. First, it makes the extension of the continental shelf dependent on a technology-driven criterion, i.e. within an area of 200 nautical miles measured from the baselines of the territorial sea, defined in Republic Act No.
The Convention contained various rules for determining the outer limits of the Continental Shelf of states. The Convention largely limits the jurisdiction of the coastal State in matters that may affect passage. Recognition of rights to maritime property included in the areas described by the lines of the Treaty of Paris.
The Philippine delegation believed that the
34; One of the consequences of this is that archipelagic waters are the subject of only two types of passage of foreign ships provided for in IV. part of the Convention: (1) harmless passage and (2) passage of archipelagic seas. 34; Passing through the sea lanes does not interfere with the sovereignty of the archipelagic country over the waters along the sea lanes. President, we have some problems with the 12 mile width of the territorial sea that is provided for in the convention.
The treaty was ratified two years later by the Batasang Pambansa56 after legislative deliberations largely focused on the treaty's implications for national security, fishing activities and the passage of foreign ships. The waters surrounding, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their width and dimensions, are part of the internal waters of the Philippines.” (emphasis added). But discussions focused on the impact of the new provision on the Sabah claim, rather than on the maritime territorial areas.
Since 1985, the Philippines has received a number of protests against the declaration it submitted when it signed the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982. 34; The Philippine declaration was made in accordance with Article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 34;The Philippine Government intends to harmonize its national legislation with the provisions of the Convention.
The Philippine Government therefore wishes to assure the Australian Government and the States Parties to the Treaty that the Philippines will comply with the provisions of the Treaty.” The meaning of the Philippine answer is dear and unequivocal. - ippines intends to adhere to the Convention, but since 1988 no concrete legislative or executive action has definitively resolved the issues surrounding the implementation of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
While the Constitution provided for the inclusion of general principles of international law as part of the law of the land, 63. The final impact of the Convention on the Constitution will undoubtedly be centered on the article dealing with the National Territory. However, the phraseology of the article is flexible enough to allow the incorporation of the Convention maritime zone system into the Philippine legal system.
This is so if one were to ignore for the moment the historical antecedents of the Treaty of Paris and related agreements and consider the article in the light of the Convention. Such a national legal definition would bring the Convention within the definition of national territory.
The dimensions of the territorial sea no longer
Ultimately, it is not a question of whether the bodies of water around, between and connecting the islands are called “internal” or not, which determines the effectiveness of state control over foreign ships. But it is necessary to exercise the rights and jurisdiction already recognized by international law. The character and extent of the territorial sea have also been central to the debate over the impact of the Treaty.
The objection to the Convention's focus on the impact on the provision of national territory and the issue of passage of foreign vessels unfortunately obscured the greater benefits of the majority of the Convention's new recognition of state rights and jurisdiction in extended maritime areas. After all, the Convention is not about territory, but rather about the management of the oceans and covers activities such as marine pollution, scientific research and use of marine resources. As a result of the debate on some provisions of the Convention, the Philippines failed to benefit from the rights, jurisdictions and obligations in all other parts of the Convention in the management of its oceans, some areas of which are far beyond the original boundaries of the national convention. territory.
It should be noted that the Philippines cannot afford to be left out of the continuing developments in the law of the sea. It has major maritime interests which have not been properly articulated due to the deadlock created by the debate on its impact on the national territory. Meanwhile, other countries have pushed forward and continuously built a regime for the management of the sea and its resources.
The Philippines' main concerns regarding the Convention have been the granting of archipelagic sea lanes passage and its impact on national security and territorial integrity, and the recognition of traditional fishing rights in archipelagic waters. 34;traditional fishing,"71 and Australia, which entered into agreements on it.72 Yet many traditional Malaysian and Indonesian fishermen cross our waters in the southern fringes of the archipelago. Part N of the Convention provides the basis for at least limiting the passage of vessels to designated archipelagic sea lanes which may be replaced under conditions which the island state may define.
In archipelagic waters outside those defined for the passage of the Archipelago Sea Lane, the exercise of the right of innocent passage may also be moderated by the designation of sea lanes73 and may even be suspended for security reasons. Additionally, having a system of internationally recognized sea lanes allows the Philippines to rationalize the monitoring of the use of the archipelago's waters by foreign vessels and more efficiently allocate its scarce resources for the management of Philippine waters. In view of the Law of the Sea, obviously also the law as far as the international community is concerned, this task becomes even more difficult.
At this point, it might be useful to discuss whether the Paris Treaty lines still have any meaning in ocean governance. This is because in ocean management the interactivity of the marine environment·. Activities on one side of the border can affect the environment on the other side, perhaps even more severely.
What matters is human activity, and how to
There is no doubt that the Philippines is bound to implement the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as it has publicly stated to the international community for about 10 years now. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides the acceptable framework for fostering the cooperation of the international community in the management of shared resources and ocean spaces. It was only after the First Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958 that a consensus developed towards 3 or 12 nautical miles.
8 Treaty between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America for the Cession of Outlying Islands in the Philippines (1900). 4003, An Act to amend and compile the laws relating to fish and other aquatic resources. 28 Proclamation of Philippine Independence by the President of the United States US Stat 1352.
30 Exchange of notes between the United Kingdom and the Republic of the Philippines concerning the transfer of the administration of the Turtle and Mangsee Islands to the Republic of the Philippines. 31 Note Verbale dated 20 January 1956 from the Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the United Nations. Declaration as Subject to the Jurisdiction and Control of the Republic of the Philippines of All Mineral and Other Natural Resources on the Philippine Continental Shelf (1968).
42 Shorthand Notes of a Public Presentation of the Committee on National Territory held on 29 September 1971 (unpublished), p. 44 See Intervention of Delegate Buendia, Proceedings on the National Territory of the Constitutional Convention. WHEREAS, much of the above area is part of the continental margin of the Philippine Archipelago;.
There is hereby established a zone known as the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines. See Proceedings of the Batasang Pambansa Corresponding to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 121, Resolution of the Batasang Pambansa Corresponding to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1984}.
