The legal status of the Philippine Treaty Limits in international law

Article

Abstract

The fundamental position of the Philippines is that the limits of its national territory are the boundaries laid down in the 1898 Treaty of Paris which ceded the Philippines from Spain to the United States. The position of the Philippine Government is contested in the international community and runs against rules in the Law of the Sea Convention, which the Philippines signed and ratified. The issue of the legal status of the Philippine Treaty Limits in international law has been subject of much academic debate and serious criticisms. This paper will analyse the legal status of the Philippine Treaty Limits in international law on the following criteria: the interpretation of the colonial treaties that defined the Treaty Limits; the points of conflict the limits have with the Law of the Sea Convention; the status of these lines in customary international law; the acquiescence and opposition of other States to the Philippine position and lastly, the opinion of publicists.

Keywords

Philippine Treaty Limits Philippine maritime boundaries International law International legal status Law of the Sea 

References

  1. Akehurst M (1974–1975) Custom as a source of international law. Brit Yearbook Int Law 47:1Google Scholar
  2. Alexander BE (1989) The territorial sea of the United States: is it twelve miles or not. J Maritime Law Commer 20:449-485Google Scholar
  3. Arreglado J (1982) Kalayaan: historical, legal, political background. Foreign Service Institute, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  4. Arruda HM (1988–1989) The extension of the United States territorial sea: reasons and effects. Conn J Int Law 4:697–727Google Scholar
  5. Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru) (1950) ICJ reportsGoogle Scholar
  6. Aust A (2000) Modern treaty law and practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Batongbacal J (2001) The maritime territories and jurisdictions of the Philippines and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Philippine Law J 76:123–168Google Scholar
  8. Batongbacal J (2005) The Philippine national marine policy: navigating unpredictable currents. In: Paper presented at the Ocean Policy Summit, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  9. Bautista LB (2008) The historical context and legal basis of the Philippine treaty limits. Asia Pac Law Policy J 10:1–31Google Scholar
  10. Bernas JG (2008) “Territorial problems” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 28 AprilGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowett DW (1957) Estoppel before international tribunals and its relation to acquiescence. Brit Yearbook Int Law 35:176–202Google Scholar
  12. Brownlie I (1998) Principles of public international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Cabacungan GC Jr (2009) “Baseline bills to reduce RP’s territory, Santiago warns” Philippine Daily Inquirer. Online at: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080325-126396/Baseline-bills-to-reduce-RPs-territory-Santiago-warns (accessed 6 April 2009)
  14. Calica A (2008) ‘Miriam to kill baseline bills’ The Philippine Star, 26 April 2008Google Scholar
  15. Caminos H, Molitor MR (1985) Progressive development of international law and the package deal. Am J Int Law 79:871–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chan-Gonzaga JVV (1997) UNCLOS and the Philippine territorial seas: problems, perspectives and options. Ateneo Law J 42:1–51Google Scholar
  17. Churchill RR, Lowe V (1999) The Law of the Sea. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  18. Convention between the United States of America and Great Britain delimiting the boundary between the Philippine archipelago and the State of North Borneo, US–UK, 2 January 1930, T.S. No. 856Google Scholar
  19. Coquia JR (1995) Legal and economic aspects of the Philippine implementation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Lawyers Rev 9:9–15Google Scholar
  20. D’Amato A (1992) International law, intertemporal problems. In: Encyclopedia of public international law, pp 1234–1236Google Scholar
  21. Degan VD (1997) Sources of international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Dellapenna JW (1970–1971) The Philippines territorial water claim in international law. J Law Econom Dev 5:45–61Google Scholar
  23. Elias TO (1980) The doctrine of intertemporal law. Am J Int Law 74:285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Encomienda AA (2003) Maritime security and Philippine foreign policy: an overview and national ocean diplomacy agenda. In: Paper presented at the national conference-workshop on maritime security: problems and approaches, Manila, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  25. Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration (9 October 1998) Phase I: territorial sovereignty and scope of dispute, awardGoogle Scholar
  26. Feliciano FP (1962) “Comments on territorial waters of archipelagos,” 1 Philippine Int Law JGoogle Scholar
  27. Fitzmaurice GG (1951) The law and procedure of the international court of justice: 1951–1954. Brit Yearbook Int Law 33:204Google Scholar
  28. Hyde CC (1933) Maps as evidence in international boundary disputes. Am J Int Law 27:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ingles JD (1983) The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: implications of Philippine ratification. Philippine Yearbook Int Law 9:47–67Google Scholar
  30. Island of Palmas (Netherlands v United States) (1928) 2 RIAA 829Google Scholar
  31. Jayewardene HW (1990) The regime of islands in international law, vol 15. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  32. Jennings RY (1963) The acquisition of territory in international law. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  33. Jennings RY, Watts AS (1997) Oppenheim’s international law. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Kammerhofer J (2004) Uncertainty in the formal sources of international law: customary international law and some of its problems. Eur J Int Law 15:523–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kasikili/Sedudu Island Case (Botswana v Namibia) ICJ (13 December 1999)Google Scholar
  36. Kaye S (2008) Freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific region, vol 22. Sea Power Centre, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  37. Knight HG (1971–1972) The 1971 United States proposals on the breadth of territorial sea and passage through international straits. Oregon Law Rev 51:759–787Google Scholar
  38. Kwiatkowska B (1990) An evaluation of state legislation on archipelagic waters. World Bull 6:22–74Google Scholar
  39. Kwiatkowska B (1991) The archipelagic regime in practice in the Philippines and Indonesia—making or breaking international law. Int J Estuar Coast Law 6:1–32Google Scholar
  40. Lee S (2007) Intertemporal law and territorial disputes in Asia. In: Paper presented at the inaugural conference of Asian society of international law: international law in Asia—past, present and future, Singapore, 7–9 April 2007Google Scholar
  41. Litwak RS (2000) Rogue States and US foreign policy: containment after the Cold WarGoogle Scholar
  42. Lotilla RPM (ed) (1995) The Philippine national territory: a collection of related documents. IILS-UP Law Center, FSI-DFA, Manila, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  43. Lotus Case (France v Turkey) (Judgment) [1927] PCIJ (ser A) No 10Google Scholar
  44. Magallona MM (1995) The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and its implications on the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines. World Bull 11:50–76Google Scholar
  45. Malanczuk P, Akehurst MB (1997) Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. McNair AD (1961) The Law of Treaties. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Milano E (2006) Unlawful territorial situations in international law: reconciling effectiveness, legality, and legitimacy. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Munavvar M (1995) Ocean states: archipelagic regimes in the Law of the Sea. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  49. Note verbale dated 20 January 1956 from the permanent delegation of the Philippines to the United Nations, Document A/CN.4/99, A/CN.4/SER.A/1956/Add.l, 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1956 at 69–70Google Scholar
  50. Note verbale dated 7 March 1955 from the permanent delegation of the Philippines to the United Nations. A/CN.4/94, Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of its Seventh Session 2 May–8 July 1955, Official Records of the General Assembly, Tenth Session, Supplement No. 9 (A/2934), 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1955 at 52–53Google Scholar
  51. Noyes JE (1989) United States of America presidential proclamation no. 5928: a 12-mile U.S. territorial sea. Int J Estuar Coast Law 4:142–148Google Scholar
  52. Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France) (1974) ICJ reports, p 253Google Scholar
  53. Palena Case (1969) Argentina/Chile Frontier Case (1966), 38 ILR 10, p 89Google Scholar
  54. Payoyo PB (1997) Cries of the sea: world inequality, sustainable development and the common heritage of humanity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, BostonGoogle Scholar
  55. Philippine Declaration on the Signing of the Convention on the Law of the Sea (10 December 1982)Google Scholar
  56. Prescott V, Schofield C (2001) Undelimited maritime boundaries of the Asian rim in the Pacific Ocean. Marit Brief 3(1):1–68Google Scholar
  57. Roach JA, Smith RW (1996) United States responses to excessive maritime claims. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Rushworth D (1998) Mapping in support of frontier arbitration: maps as evidence. Bound Secur Bull 5:51–55Google Scholar
  59. Santiago MD (1974) The archipelago concept in the Law of the Sea: problems and perspectives. Philippine Law J 49:315–386Google Scholar
  60. Schwarzenberger G (1967) A manual of international law. Stevens, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Serbian Loans (12 July 1929) PCIJ Series A, Nos. 20/21, p 5, at p 38Google Scholar
  62. Sharma SP (1997) Territorial acquisition, disputes and international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  63. Shaw MN (2000) Case concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island—Botswana/Namibia. Int Comp Law Quart 49:964–978Google Scholar
  64. Shaw MN (2003) International law. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Sherman GE (1921) Nature and sources of international law. Am J Int Law 15:349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sorensen M (1959) The territorial sea of archipelagos. In: Varia Juris Gentium, Liber Amicorum, J.P.A. Francois, p 314Google Scholar
  67. Statute of the International Court of Justice, opened for signature 26 June 1945, 3 Bevans 1179; 59 Stat. 1031; T.S. 993; 39 AJIL Supp. 215 (1945) (entered into force 24 October 1945)Google Scholar
  68. Taba Case (1988) Arbitral award in the dispute concerning certain boundary pillars between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 80 ILR 226 (1988), 27 ILM 1421 (1988)Google Scholar
  69. Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Merits) (1962) ICJ reports, p 6Google Scholar
  70. The Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law), “An Act to Declare the Purpose of the People of the United States as to the Future Political Status of the People of the Philippine Islands, and to Provide a More Autonomous Government for those Islands.” 29 August 1916Google Scholar
  71. The Tydings McDuffie Act otherwise known as the Philippine Independence Act, approved on 24 March 1934Google Scholar
  72. Tolentino AM (1960) Statement. Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Verbatim Record of the Committee of the WholeGoogle Scholar
  73. Tolentino A (1974) The Philippine territorial sea. Philippine Yearbook Int Law 3:46–54Google Scholar
  74. Tolentino AM (1975) Philippine position on passage through archipelagic waters. Philippine Yearbook Int Law 4:44–46Google Scholar
  75. Tolentino AM (1982) The Philippines and the Law of the Sea: a collection of articles, statements and speeches. Development Academy of the Philippine Press, Manila, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  76. Tolentino A (1983) The Philippine archipelago and the law of the sea. Philippine Law Gazette 7:1–16Google Scholar
  77. Treaty of Peace between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America (Treaty of Paris), United States Treaty Series No. 343, 30 Stat. 1754 (10 December 1898)Google Scholar
  78. Treaty signed at Washington on 7 November 1900, ratified by the United States Senate on 23 March 1901. Sen. Doc. 124, 56th Congress, 2d Sess., and For. Rel., 1900 at 887–888Google Scholar
  79. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980)Google Scholar
  80. Weissberg G (1963) Maps as evidence in international boundary disputes: a reappraisal. Am J Int Law 57:781–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Whiteman (1966) Digest of international law, vol. 4, pp 286–287Google Scholar
  82. Yoo J (2003) International law and the war in Iraq. Am J Int Law 97(3):563–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Aegean Institute of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and SecurityUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations