IT is “highly possible” that the new arbitration cases against China over its aggressive and illegal actions in the West Philippine Sea would prosper, a political analyst said Saturday.
Dr. Froilan Calilung, who teaches political science at the University of Santo Tomas, issued the statement after former Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio again pressed the government to “file several arbitration cases” against China for its violations of international law.
Carpio was part of the Philippine delegation in the 2013 arbitration case against Beijing, which Manila won in 2016.
“Yes, this is highly possible; we will be able to do that,” Calilung said during the Saturday news forum in Quezon City when asked whether the new arbitration cases would prosper.
But then again, Calilung said the problem here would be “we are not dealing with a different adversary — it’s still the same China that we will be facing.
“And if we look at the issue of Unclos (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), which they themselves are signatories, they did not acknowledge, similarly they did not consider the arbitral ruling, so what will be the guarantee,” he said.
Calilung said “we need to explore every possible area where we could mobilize enough support, especially from freedom-loving countries and those countries that really have the same aspirations like us.”
“Another consideration because maybe, when what we look at here, is the environmental destruction because it’s a global concern. It’s not just a military or political issue, but it’s global commons because this will form part of what we all say that we are affected, and I think it’s a good start just in case,” he said.
He said he hoped that China “would listen this time.”
“It’s just that they have different actions. They really don’t care how many reefs are damaged. These reefs that are there for the past, what — 2,000 years ago, they destroyed it in a couple of months, and they don’t care — what more can we do [in] this diplomatic protest against their environmental destruction,” he said.
China’s call
Calilung’s statements come as China once again called on the US and the European Union to refrain from encouraging the Philippines to pursue further arbitration.
In a press conference on Friday, coinciding with the eighth anniversary of the arbitral ruling, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said it was hypocritical to selectively apply international law with double standards.
“This is hypocrisy, double standard, and selective application of international law. Second, the US and the EU disregard the history and facts on the South China Sea issue, act against the UN Charter and misinterpret the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other international laws,” Lin said.
“Their position and proposition do not hold water. Third, the US has returned to its public commitment of not taking a position on sovereignty issues in the South China Sea,” he said.
China emphasized the need for regional peace and stability and criticized the positions taken by the US, the EU and other parties in support of the arbitral award.
According to the Chinese spokesman, the US encouraged the Philippines to launch the arbitration on the South China Sea and blatantly released a statement to endorse the award.
“This is political manipulation aimed at using allies to destabilize the South China Sea and the region and advance the nefarious agenda of going after China,” he said.
Lin argued that the Philippines initiated the arbitration case unilaterally in breach of its commitment to China. The matters raised were beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitral court set up temporarily at the request of the Philippines.
“The tribunal took the case anyway and delivered an illegal, null, and void ruling. The Philippines breached the common understanding it had reached with China on resolving the disputes in the South China Sea through bilateral consultation and negotiation,” he said.
Lin said China has never accepted or taken part in the case. The arbitral tribunal violated the principle of state consent and acted against Unclos and general international law.
Be the first to comment