Territorial disputes on seas has been occurring and been a problem among nations in the world.

Among these are the spratlys island, sabah island palma islands and many others which has
been either solved by diplomatic solutions or has been settled through international conventions
but there has been a new incident of territorial disputes that occurred on the West Philippine Sea
which involved the Scarborough Shoal. Located some 220 kilometres from The province of
Zambales it is a prime fishing area of most Filipino fisherman because it is rich in aquatic and
marine resources but dated . a standoff occurred between the Philippine Navy and a surveillance
ship of China on the shoal,. How did this happen? More importantly why did it happen to
understand this things lets go back to history and listen to the two side of the stories
Based on the Philippines side the shoals history can be traced in the time of the Spanish colonial
period that on On Sept. 12, 1748, a British boat named Scarborough, carrying tea, was wrecked
on a feature called Maroona by Spanish cartographers. Maroona Shoal became known
internationally as Scarborough Shoal. Maroona Shoal was first surveyed in April 1800 by a
Spanish frigate, Santa Lucia, sent by Admiral Malaspina in Manila. A more precise survey of this
feature was organized in May of 1866 by the British vessel H.M.S. Swallow under the command
of E. Wilde.
However, with the island of Luzon being the closest to Bajo de Masingloc (124 nautical miles or
220 km), responsibility for rescuing vessels stranded at the shoal naturally fell on the Spanish
Navy. Thus, according to the Spanish Hydrographic Office (1866), boats from the Philippines
were sent to help crews in difficulty on this shoal but after that followed the American
occupation here in the Philippines in which This responsibility was transferred to the American
colonial government in the archipelago. For example, when, on May 8, 1913, the Swedish

steamship Nippon went aground on Scarborough Shoal, the Bureau of Navigation in Manila sent
the Coast Guard cutter Mindoro to help the stranded crew.
Moreover, a conflict arose between the salvaging company and the insurance companies for the
sharing of the proceeds of the salvaged cargo (copra). Litigants went to the Manila Court of First
Instance and then to the Supreme Court ofthe Philippines. The final judgment of the Supreme
Court was recognized by the claimants.
The 19th century nautical books of the British Admiralty and the Spanish Hydrographic Office
did not note the presence, on this shoal, of fishermen from China or elsewhere (unlike on the
Spratly and Paracel Islands). The geographical proximity spoke in favor of the Philippines
(rescue operations). However, in the context of the southern expansion of the Japanese empire
and the preparation for independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines claimed in 1937-38
the Scarborough Shoal. No less than President of the Commonwealth Manuel Quezon, US
Secretary of State Cordell Hull and US Secretaries of War, Navy and Commerce concurred with
this claim.
As they recognized that the Scarborough Shoal was outside the limits of the Treaty of Paris, they
considered these limits as flexible and not fixed boundaries.
This flexibility could be shown by the fact that in 1900, the Philippines recovered some islands
(Sibutu and Cagayan de Sulu) but lost the Island of Palmas in 1928 and gained the Turtle Islands
and Mangsee Reef in 1930. Thus, the transfer of the shoal could be done, with enough Spanish
evidence, by invoking the Treaty of Washington of 1900.

Nevertheless, the bureaucratic process of the claim took nearly the whole year of 1938. In 1939,
the Japanese Navy took control of Hainan Island and Paracel Islands, and was pushing toward
the Spratly Islands. For security reasons, Scarborough Shoal was unofficially claimed
But on the other hand the China has its own story to tell. China said that they first discovered and
name the Huangyan Island and incorporate it into the territory of China to exercise the
jurisdiction over it.
China discovered Huangyan Island in the Yuan dynasty.The Water Mapping Review Committee,
which was composed of China's Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department
of the Navy and Ministry of Education, announced 132 islands, reefs and beaches of the China
South Sea in January 1935. Among them, as a part of Zhongsha Islands, the Huangyan Island,
which was called "Scarborough Shoal" at the time, was included in the territory of China. In
October 1947, Chinese government announced a new list of the South China Sea islands and the
Scarborough Shoal was renamed as "Minzhu Reef" in it. In 1983, the Chinese Toponymy
Committee was authorized to release a list of some South China Sea islands and began to use
Huangyan Island as the island's standard name. The island's another name is "Minzhu Reef." All
the official maps published by Chinese government mark the Huangyan Island as Chinese
territory, and China has noted that the Huangyan Island is Chinese territory in its announcements
and declarations concerning the sovereignty of the South China Sea islands.
Also, China has been developing and utilizing the Huangyan Island for a long time.
The Huangyan Island is the traditional fishing place for Chinese fishermen. Chinese fishing boats
had often engaged in fishery production activities since ancient times.

The Chinese Government had sent the scientific expedition to investigate the Huangyan Island
for more than once. For example, the researchers of the South China Sea Institute of Oceanology
of the Chinese Academy of Sciences had boarded the Huangyan Island in October 1977. In June
1978, these researchers again boarded it for investigation. In April 1985, the South China Sea
Branch of the State Oceanic Administration organized a comprehensive expedition to investigate
the Huangyan Island. In 1994, the South China Sea scientific expedition arrived in Huangyan
Island to investigate it and built a one-meter-high concrete monument on the island. In 1994,
1995 and 1997, China had successively authorized radio amateurs boarding the island
Although tensions have arise both parties are firm on their stand on their claim of the island
Philippines is firm that they have Basis for sovereignty and claim of the island. There Basis is
that Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) is not an island. Bajo de Masinloc is also not part of
the Spratlys.Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) is a ring-shaped coral reef, which has several
rocks encircling a lagoon. About five of these rocks are above water during high tide. Of these
five rocks, some are about 3 meters high above water. The rest of the rocks and reefs are below
water during high tide.Bajo de Masinlocs (Scarborough Shoal) chain of reefs and rocks is about
124 NM from the nearest coast of Luzon and approximately 472 NM from the nearest coast of
China. Bajo de Masinloc is located

(Aquino on his speech about the shoal)

approximately along latitude 1508N and longitude

11745E. The rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are situated
north of the Spratlys.

Obviously, therefore, the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is also within the 200-NM EEZ and 200-NM
continental shelf (CS) of the Philippines.

A distinction has to be made between the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc and the larger body
of water and continental shelf where the said geological features are situated. The rights or nature
of rights of the Philippines over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are different from that
which it exercises over the larger body of water and continental shelf
The Philippines exercises full sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc,
and sovereign rights over the waters and continental shelf where the said rock features of Bajo de
Masinloc are situated.
The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is
distinct from that of its sovereign rights over the larger body of water and continental shelf.
The rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories.
The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is
not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the
Treaty of Paris. The matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within
the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no
consequence.
Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is likewise not
premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200-NM EEZ or CS under the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the Philippines necessarily exercise
sovereign rights over its EEZ and CS, nonetheless, the reason why the rock features of Bajo de
Masinloc are Philippine territories is anchored on other principles of public international law.

As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas
Island Case, a modality for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective
exercise of jurisdiction. Indeed, in that particular case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was
adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of effective exercise of jurisdiction, although
the said island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the U.S.
in the Treaty of Paris.
In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation and
effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence.
The name Bajo de Masinloc (translated as under Masinloc) itself identifies the shoal as a
particular political subdivision of the Philippine province of Zambales, known as Masinloc.

One of the earliest known and most accurate maps of the area, named Carta Hydrographical y
Chorographica De Las Yslas Filipinas by Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, SJ, and published in 1734,
included Bajo de Masinloc as part of Zambales.
The name Bajo de Masinloc was a name given to the shoal by the Spanish colonizers. In 1792,
another map drawn by the Alejandro Malaspina expedition and published in 1808 in Madrid,
Spain, also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Philippine territory. This map showed the route
of the Malaspina expedition to and around the shoal. It was reproduced in the Atlas of the 1939
Philippine Census.

The Mapa General, Islas Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila, published in 1990 by the U.S. Coast
and Geodetic Survey, also included Bajo de Masinloc as part of the Philippines.

Philippine flags have been erected on some of the islets of the shoal, including a flag raised on an
8.3-meter high flagpole in 1965 and another Philippine flag raised by Congressmen Roque Ablan
and Jose Yap in 1997. In 1965, the Philippines also built and operated a small lighthouse in one
of the islets in the shoal. In 1992, the Philippine Navy rehabilitated the lighthouse and reported it
to the International Maritime Organization for publication in the List of Lights (currently, this
lighthouse is not operational).
Bajo de Masinloc was also used as an impact range by Philippine and U.S. Naval Forces
stationed in Subic Bay in Zambales for defense purposes. The Philippines Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, together with the University of the Philippines, has also
been conducting scientific, topographic, and marine studies in the shoal. Filipino fishermen have
always considered it as their fishing grounds, owing to their proximity to the coastal towns and
areas of Southwest Luzon.
Waters outside and around Bajo de Masinloc: Basis of Philippine sovereign rights under
UNCLOS
As earlier indicated, there is a distinction between the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc and the
waters within its vicinity. The question of who owns the rocks is a matter governed by the
principles of public international law relating to modalities for acquiring territories. On the other
hand, the extent of its adjacent waters is governed by UNCLOS. Likewise, the waters outside of
the maritime area of Bajo de Masinloc are also governed by UNCLOS.
As noted, there are only about five rocks in Bajo de Masinloc that are above water during high
tide. The rest are below water during high tide. Accordingly, these rocks have only 12 NM
maximum territorial waters under Article 121 of UNCLOS. Because the Philippines has

sovereignty over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, it follows that it has also sovereignty over their
12-NM territorial waters.

On the Other hand China has also stood in their ground for their claim and sovereignty on
Scarborough shoal which they prefer to call Huangyan Island

According to many historical documents, Chinese first discovered the group of reefs and islets
about 550 sea miles south of Hainan Island, and the surrounding waters in the South China Sea,
and named the area "Zhanghai," or the Rising Sea, as early as over 2,000 years ago. From the
Song Dynasty (AD 960-1279) to the Qing Dynasty (AD 1644-1912), Chinese called these
islands "Shitang" and "Changsha," which included Huangyan Island, as part of the Zhongsha
Islands.

In the 13th century, Emperor Kublai Khan of China's Yuan Dynasty assigned an astronomer
named Guo Shoujing to conduct a territory survey to unify the calendar nationwide, said Li
Guoqiang, deputy director of the Research Center for Chinese Borderland History and
Geography of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a government think tank.Huangyan
Island was chosen as one of the 27 measuring locations in the survey in 1279, which was clearly
recorded in the official historical documents

The waters around Huangyan Island are traditional fisheries for Chinese fishermen. They have
not only fished in the waters but also built docks and other facilities on the islets. The Chinese
government has also sent several expeditions to Huangyan Island. In October, 1977 and June,
1978, scientists from the South China Sea Institute of Oceanology under the Chinese Academy

of Sciences twice conducted field surveys on the island. In April, 1985, the South China Sea
Branch of the State Oceanic Administration sent a research team to the island for a
comprehensive investigation.

In 1994, a research team erected an 1-meter-high cement monument on the island.

China's long-term effective jurisdiction over Huangyan Island offers an important proof for its
sovereignty claim. There were a number of government actions involving the island, for instance,
the territorial survey in the 13th century, the newspaper article wrote.

Li Hongyun, expert with the Law School of the Peking University, told the newspaper that the
Chinese government officially announced the name of Huangyan Island respectively in 1935,
1947 and 1983 and all the official maps published by Chinese governments in different historical
periods marked Huangyan Island as

(Chinese Ambassador to the

Chinese territory.

Philippines Ma Keqing on his

Speech on the dispute)

The island has been consistently under administration of China's Guangdong province first and
Hainan province later. It is currently administered by the administration office for the Xisha
Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Nansha Islands under Hainan province.

Since the 1970s, the Chinese government has approved many applications from foreign
adventurers requesting to visit the island, Li said.

These actions are entirely official and governmental, which directly proves China's sovereignty
over the island, Li said.

Also, China points out that the territory of the Philippines is set by a series of international
treaties due to its special history.

Zhang Haiwen, deputy director with the China Institute for Marine Affairs, told the newspaper
that all the related international treaties, including the Treaty of Paris (1898), the Treaty of
Washington (1900) and the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States (1930) have
stated clearly the west limit of the Philippine territory is 118 degrees east longitude, while
Huangyan Island, located 117 degrees 48 minutes east longitude, is outside this limit.

Moreover, the 1946 Treaty of General Relations between the United States of America and the
Republic of the Philippines, the 1952 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty, the 1961 Republic
Act No.3046 and the 1968 Republic Act No.5446 have reaffirmed the legal effects of the abovementioned treaties and once again expressively defined the Philippine territorial limits which
never included Huangyan Island.
OFFICIAL PHILIPPINE MAPS LONG EXCLUDE HUANGYAN ISLAND

"During a rather long period, the Philippine legal documents, official papers and national maps
never involve Huangyan Island," said Li Guoqiang.

Under the Philippines domestic laws and regulations, including the 1935 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines, Huangyan Island is outside the territory of the Philippines and even
the baseline points and baseline of the Philippine territorial waters have never touched upon
Huangyan Island.

Philippine maps published in 1981 and 1984 also indicate that Huangyan Island is outside the
country's territory.

Until 1997, the Philippines never challenged China's jurisdiction over Huangyan Island and
repeatedly stated that Huangyan Island was not part of its territory.

The documents issued by the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority of the
Philippines on Oct. 18, 1994, and by the Philippine Amateur Radio Association to the American
Radio Relay League on Nov. 18, 1994, both confirmed that the Philippine border and
sovereignty was stipulated by the Article 3 of the Treaty of Paris (1898) and Huangyan Island is
outside of Philippine territory.

The Philippines argued that Huangyan Island was its "inherent territory" because the island was
in its 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone.

Li Hongyun told the newspaper that, as a basic principle clearly stated by the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, a country must have sovereignty over the land before it
claims sovereignty over the adjacent sea waters.

The Philippines claimed sovereignty over the waters before making a claim for the land, which
was obviously wrong, Li said.

It recently claimed sovereignty over Huangyan Island on the basis of exercising jurisdiction on
the island and cited the case of the Island of Palmas, which confirmed the principle that a country
could claim sovereignty for its long-term and effective jurisdiction over the land.

"China agrees on the principle and, it is based on the principle that China has sovereignty over
Huangyan Island for it has implemented long-term and effective jurisdiction," Li said.

In addition, geographic proximity, which formed part of the Philippines' claim, is no solution to
territorial entitlement as international laws and practices have early defined.

Such examples can be found everywhere in the world that a country owns a remote land that is
geographically nearer to other nations, the article said.

The principle of geographic proximity would no doubt cause big chaos if it was applied in
territorial affairs, the article said.

Body
So why are the two countries fight for this small parcel or might as well say it as island?
As what Aristotle said We are government of laws of not of men. Every country if he sees he
has the right to claim an island will always fight for it no matter what is the power nor size of the
other claimants because it is their right to do so based on international law. Also, its a countries
dignity is at stake here if you really have a strong claim and did not fight for it imagine just what
will happen to the country if there is no tight sovereignty all over the jurisdiction of its borders .
The enforcement of the law and the order of the county will be affected.

Based on experts the Philippines Do have a strong claim in the island. As what thye have
said Historical claims are not enough Mr. Sto.Romana At a lecture held at the Ortigas
Foundation Library Monday, the claims of China and the Philippines on the disputed Panatag
Shoal were presented and examined by Beijing-based journalist Chito Sta. Romana, and lawyer
Harry Roque respectively.

Historically, [China says] that they discovered it and drew it into their map in the Yuan Dynasty,
which is the 13th up to the 14th century," Sta. Romana explained.

They say that in 1279, the Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing performed a survey of the seas
around China for the Mongolian emperor at that time, Kublai Khan," he added.

The veteran journalist also said China claims that the shoal, which they call Huangyan Island,
has been, since ancient times, a traditional fishing place for Chinese fishermen."

As for the Philippine claim, Roque said, Its historical, like Chinas, except that it does not
extend to as early as the 1300s."

I discovered a 1724 map on deposit with the British library and I have procured a copy of that
map, which in fact reflects that Scarborough Shoal is part of the Philippine archipelago. There is
also a 1750 map and another chart, which gave the name Bajo de Masinloc to what is known as
Scarborough," he explained.

However, Roque warned that in international tribunals, maps are often disregarded because
number one, the maps are inaccurate, number two, the names and titles found in maps are, more
often than not, unreliable."

Historical claim not enough

Sta. Romana agreed, emphasizing that a historical claim does not necessarily constitute a
historical title to Scarborough Shoal. To prove that your claim should be with a title, you have to
show that you exercised effective occupation and jurisdiction over a long period of time."

In that respect, according to both Sta. Romana and Roque, the Chinese claim falters.

Discovery alone brings about only an inchoate right which still must be perfected through
effective occupation. While China highlights that they discovered the island in 1200s, the earliest
evidence of effective occupation that they would invoke is as late as 1935," Roque said.

He then went on to specify evidence of the Philippines invoking effective occupation, most
obviously through the fishermen. He specified the regular patrols by the Philippine Navy and Air
Force, as well as the apprehension by the Philippine Coast Guard of local and foreign fishermen
who have been caught harvesting protected marine species.

Roque also mentioned military and weapon exercises and marine scientific experiments, and
highlighted the construction of a lighthouse in 1965, that has since been destroyed in a typhoon.

The building of a lighthouse is evidence that you are in the discharge of a sovereign function to
promote safety of navigation," he said.

EEZ vs. 9-dash-line

Both speakers also criticized the 9-dash-line which China uses to mark the boundaries of their
claim on the South China Sea. On the map, the line runs parallel to the coasts of Vietnam,
Malaysia, and the Philippines and includes not only the Scarborough Shoal but other disputed
territories, such as the Spratlys.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea, states are granted Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZs), areas up to 200 nautical miles from their baselines, where they are
accorded sovereign rights to exclusively explore and exploit the natural resources found in the
waters, and subsoil within the EEZ.

The Panatag Shoal is within the Philippines EEZ.

The Chinese claim in the 9-dash-line map conflicts with the UNCLOS, exceeds what is
permitted in the UNCLOS and intersects with EEZs of several countries in Southeast Asia,
including the Philippines," Sta. Romana said.

If we were to concede the rocks themselves and the 12 nm of territorial sea that they can
generate, even conceding that, it is clear that in terms of relative merits of our title, our title,
based on UNCLOS is far superior to Chinas because as Chito said, the 9-dash-line has
absolutely no legal basis anywhere you look," Roque added.

Bilateral negotiations?

Even as the tension has diffused and both Chinese and Philippine vessels have withdrawn from
the Panatag Shoal, the question of how the issue will be resolved remains.

Both Roque and Sta. Romana pointed out that the Chinese prefer bilateral negotiations.

They want to resolve it not by going to court but by having bilateral talks. Their proposal is
back to the idea of joint exploration and development, and then there is the concept of a joint
fishing zone or a joint maritime zone," Sta. Romana said.

Roque advocated bringing the matter to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
(ITLOS).

What does China want to achieve through Bilateral negotiations? Im not speculating here.
China has other unresolved territorial disputes not only with the Philippines. In all its disputes it

has refused to bring it to the international tribunal. It has refused to discuss them in any
multilateral setting," Roque said.

International law, like any law, is intended to be practiced by litigators. This is something that I
think our policymakers have not recognizedit has to be resolved by an international tribunal
because clearly, diplomacy will not work. Im saying this not just as an isolated observation, but
on the basis of Chinas track record in resolving its many unresolved territorial disputes," he
continued.

Roque concluded that submitting the Scarborough Shoal dispute to the binding and compulsory
jurisdiction of the ITLOS may be the best course of action to finally resolve the issue and also
the best for Philippine national interests

Although tensions have arise because of these territorial disputes there are options that might
resolve these problems in a peaceful manner. The Philippines and the international community
are addressing that this problem is to be brought to the International Tribunal to The Law of the
Sea but China has refused and settled that this problem should be solve in a bilateral manner.
China has always been closed to the international community especially cases of territorial
disputes considering thats its a communist country and have a strong idealism especially on
communism. Experts said that China might want to have bilateral talks just because it wants to
bully the Philippines and resolve the conflict in a way of that the Philippines is deprived but the
current administration is firm in its decision that to consult the problem to the international
community and bring the case to UNCLOS. Certain countries have supported the Philippines in

their call including United States of America, the Philippines long time ally, its neighbouring
countries which also part of the disputes, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam and all other
countries that are members of the UN. In spite of these China has always been silent and even
has become more aggressive. It even stated that the Philippine government is not helping the
situation but rather worsening it. They pointed out that even from the pre-colonial era
Philippines and China were good friends in economy and stability of both countries and said
that what will just happen if these good friendship is just be of waste just because of these small
conflict Due to this problem the tourism industry is also affected many Chinese citizen have back
out their scheduled flights during the tension. Even OFW in China are affected too. Some OFW
even said that there were critized by the Chinese people wherever they go and cant do nothing
about it but still even the call of the international community China reasserted the call of bilateral
talks as of the latest new. China asserted anew its stance on addressing its long-running maritime
territorial dispute with the Philippines through bilateral talks, its foreign ministry said this week.
Foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei also maintained China has historical, jurisprudential
evidence to support its claim to the Nansha (Spratly) islands, China's Xinhua reported.

"China hopes the Philippines will honor its commitment by not taking any action that could
complicate the issue, positively respond to China's proposal to establish a bilateral dialogue
mechanism on maritime issues and work to solve the issue through bilateral negotiations," the
Xinhuanet report quoted Hong as saying at a press briefing Tuesday.

On Tuesday, Hong said Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Ma Keqing gave Philippine
officials a note and related notice after expressing China's rejection of United Nations arbitration

of its South China Sea dispute with the Philippines..He said the Philippines' note on UN
mediation in the territorial dispute and related notice "not only violate the consensus enshrined in
the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), but are also factually
flawed and contain false accusations. But he reiterated China is committed to addressing the
dispute through bilateral talks. According to Hong, the consensus in the DOC states that disputes
should be solved through talks between the nations directly involved.He insisted China has
sufficient historical and jurisprudential evidence to support its claim to the Nansha islands, which
are located in the South China Sea, and their adjacent waters. In the midst of all this tension they
have even call drills at the Pacific which somewhat alarms the US and the entire international
community

As of the moment due to Chinas aggressiveness India, Vietnam and all other neighbouring
countries have also raised security in their borders.

Conclusion
Amidst all of these things peace is still essential to resolve these issue and must be the
only option be taken by both parties. The Philippines and China way back the past have a really
good relations in terms of politics, economy and other aspect involved in both national and
international aspects. With China showing military force and the Philippines taking its firm stand
nothing can really be solved. So both parties have to think and evaluate what should be done and
also hear the voice of the international community. These problem should be solved in manners

of international laws and principle. There are many ways to solve this issue peacefully it can be
bilateral, multilateral talks and others which confirm to international law One good proposal is
joint exploration Their proposal is back to the idea of joint exploration and development, and
then there is the concept of a joint fishing zone or a joint maritime zone but one way or another
one most effective solutions to this issue is to pass the dispute on the International Tribunal on
the Law of the Sea which settles all territorial disputes all over the world peacefully but due to
Chinas neglection it cant be done.. International law, like any law, is intended to be practiced by
litigators. This is something that I think our policymakers have not recognizedit has to be
resolved by an international tribunal because clearly, diplomacy will not work. Im saying this
not just as an isolated observation, but on the basis of Chinas track record in resolving its many
unresolved territorial disputes, So for the sake of both countries China should really agree on
Philippiness proposal because as what i have said diplomacy will not really work because the
two countries have different stands