Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The legal status of the Philippine Treaty Limits in international law

  • Article
  • Published:
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Republic Act No. 5446, An Act to Amend Section One of the Republic Act Numbered Thirty Hundred and Forty-Six, “An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines,” 18 September 1968.

  2. Presidential Decree No. 1596, “Declaring Certain Area Part of the Philippine Territory and Providing for their Government and Administration,” 11 June 1978.

  3. Presidential Decree No. 1599, Establishing An Exclusive Economic Zone and for Other Purposes, 11 June 1978.

  4. Republic Act No. 9522, “An Act to Amend Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446, to Define the Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines, and for Other Purposes,” 10 March 2009.

  5. Republic Act No. 3046, An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines, 17 June 1961.

  6. House Bill No. 3216, entitled “An Act Defining the Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippine Archipelago, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 3046, as Amended by Republic Act No. 5446”, filed by Representative Antonio Cuenco, 5 December 2007 and Senate Bill No. 2699, entitled “An Act to Amend Republic Act No. 3046, as Amended by Republic Act No. 5446, and for Other Purposes”, authored by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, 10 November 2008.

  7. For example, the following States declare a territorial sea of 200 nautical miles: Benin, Congo, Somalia, Liberia and Togo.

  8. For example, the North Korean nuclear armament, the US invasion of Iraq, etc.

References

  • Akehurst M (1974–1975) Custom as a source of international law. Brit Yearbook Int Law 47:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander BE (1989) The territorial sea of the United States: is it twelve miles or not. J Maritime Law Commer 20:449-485

    Google Scholar 

  • Arreglado J (1982) Kalayaan: historical, legal, political background. Foreign Service Institute, Manila

    Google Scholar 

  • Arruda HM (1988–1989) The extension of the United States territorial sea: reasons and effects. Conn J Int Law 4:697–727

    Google Scholar 

  • Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru) (1950) ICJ reports

  • Aust A (2000) Modern treaty law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 76:123–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Batongbacal J (2005) The Philippine national marine policy: navigating unpredictable currents. In: Paper presented at the Ocean Policy Summit, Lisbon, Portugal

  • Bautista LB (2008) The historical context and legal basis of the Philippine treaty limits. Asia Pac Law Policy J 10:1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernas JG (2008) “Territorial problems” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 28 April

  • Bowett DW (1957) Estoppel before international tribunals and its relation to acquiescence. Brit Yearbook Int Law 35:176–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1998) Principles of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Calica A (2008) ‘Miriam to kill baseline bills’ The Philippine Star, 26 April 2008

  • Caminos H, Molitor MR (1985) Progressive development of international law and the package deal. Am J Int Law 79:871–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan-Gonzaga JVV (1997) UNCLOS and the Philippine territorial seas: problems, perspectives and options. Ateneo Law J 42:1–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill RR, Lowe V (1999) The Law of the Sea. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 856

  • Coquia JR (1995) Legal and economic aspects of the Philippine implementation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Lawyers Rev 9:9–15

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato A (1992) International law, intertemporal problems. In: Encyclopedia of public international law, pp 1234–1236

  • Degan VD (1997) Sources of international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellapenna JW (1970–1971) The Philippines territorial water claim in international law. J Law Econom Dev 5:45–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias TO (1980) The doctrine of intertemporal law. Am J Int Law 74:285–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Philippines

  • Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration (9 October 1998) Phase I: territorial sovereignty and scope of dispute, award

  • Feliciano FP (1962) “Comments on territorial waters of archipelagos,” 1 Philippine Int Law J

  • Fitzmaurice GG (1951) The law and procedure of the international court of justice: 1951–1954. Brit Yearbook Int Law 33:204

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde CC (1933) Maps as evidence in international boundary disputes. Am J Int Law 27:311–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingles JD (1983) The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: implications of Philippine ratification. Philippine Yearbook Int Law 9:47–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Island of Palmas (Netherlands v United States) (1928) 2 RIAA 829

  • Jayewardene HW (1990) The regime of islands in international law, vol 15. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY (1963) The acquisition of territory in international law. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY, Watts AS (1997) Oppenheim’s international law. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kammerhofer J (2004) Uncertainty in the formal sources of international law: customary international law and some of its problems. Eur J Int Law 15:523–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasikili/Sedudu Island Case (Botswana v Namibia) ICJ (13 December 1999)

  • Kaye S (2008) Freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific region, vol 22. Sea Power Centre, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight HG (1971–1972) The 1971 United States proposals on the breadth of territorial sea and passage through international straits. Oregon Law Rev 51:759–787

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwiatkowska B (1990) An evaluation of state legislation on archipelagic waters. World Bull 6:22–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwiatkowska B (1991) The archipelagic regime in practice in the Philippines and Indonesia—making or breaking international law. Int J Estuar Coast Law 6:1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 2007

  • Litwak RS (2000) Rogue States and US foreign policy: containment after the Cold War

  • Lotilla RPM (ed) (1995) The Philippine national territory: a collection of related documents. IILS-UP Law Center, FSI-DFA, Manila, Philippines

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotus Case (France v Turkey) (Judgment) [1927] PCIJ (ser A) No 10

  • 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 11:50–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Malanczuk P, Akehurst MB (1997) Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McNair AD (1961) The Law of Treaties. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Milano E (2006) Unlawful territorial situations in international law: reconciling effectiveness, legality, and legitimacy. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Munavvar M (1995) Ocean states: archipelagic regimes in the Law of the Sea. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 69–70

  • 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 52–53

  • Noyes JE (1989) United States of America presidential proclamation no. 5928: a 12-mile U.S. territorial sea. Int J Estuar Coast Law 4:142–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France) (1974) ICJ reports, p 253

  • Palena Case (1969) Argentina/Chile Frontier Case (1966), 38 ILR 10, p 89

  • Payoyo PB (1997) Cries of the sea: world inequality, sustainable development and the common heritage of humanity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Philippine Declaration on the Signing of the Convention on the Law of the Sea (10 December 1982)

  • Prescott V, Schofield C (2001) Undelimited maritime boundaries of the Asian rim in the Pacific Ocean. Marit Brief 3(1):1–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach JA, Smith RW (1996) United States responses to excessive maritime claims. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushworth D (1998) Mapping in support of frontier arbitration: maps as evidence. Bound Secur Bull 5:51–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Santiago MD (1974) The archipelago concept in the Law of the Sea: problems and perspectives. Philippine Law J 49:315–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Santiago MD (2009) http://www.miriam.com.ph/2008/03/25-march-2008-miriam-charter-bans.html (accessed 6 April 2009)

  • Schwarzenberger G (1967) A manual of international law. Stevens, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Serbian Loans (12 July 1929) PCIJ Series A, Nos. 20/21, p 5, at p 38

  • Sharma SP (1997) Territorial acquisition, disputes and international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2000) Case concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island—Botswana/Namibia. Int Comp Law Quart 49:964–978

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2003) International law. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman GE (1921) Nature and sources of international law. Am J Int Law 15:349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen M (1959) The territorial sea of archipelagos. In: Varia Juris Gentium, Liber Amicorum, J.P.A. Francois, p 314

  • 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)

  • 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)

  • Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Merits) (1962) ICJ reports, p 6

  • 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 1916

  • The Tydings McDuffie Act otherwise known as the Philippine Independence Act, approved on 24 March 1934

  • Tolentino AM (1960) Statement. Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Verbatim Record of the Committee of the Whole

  • Tolentino A (1974) The Philippine territorial sea. Philippine Yearbook Int Law 3:46–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolentino AM (1975) Philippine position on passage through archipelagic waters. Philippine Yearbook Int Law 4:44–46

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Philippines

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolentino A (1983) The Philippine archipelago and the law of the sea. Philippine Law Gazette 7:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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 887–888

  • 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)

  • Weissberg G (1963) Maps as evidence in international boundary disputes: a reappraisal. Am J Int Law 57:781–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman (1966) Digest of international law, vol. 4, pp 286–287

  • Yoo J (2003) International law and the war in Iraq. Am J Int Law 97(3):563–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank his supervisors Prof. Martin Tsamenyi and Dr. Clive Schofield for their helpful comments, and Prof. Jay L. Batongbacal for drawing the map depicting the International Treaty Limits.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

    Lowell B. Bautista

Authors
  1. Lowell B. Bautista
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lowell B. Bautista.

Additional information

This paper was submitted as a chapter in the author’s Ph.D. dissertation in progress entitled, ‘The legal status of the Philippine Treaty Limits and territorial water claim in international law: national and international legal perspectives.’

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bautista, L.B. The legal status of the Philippine Treaty Limits in international law. Aegean Rev Law Sea 1, 111–139 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12180-009-0003-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12180-009-0003-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation