The Philippines’ recent enactment of two significant maritime laws—the “Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act” and the “Philippine Maritime Zones Act”—has sparked international concern over potential violations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and regional navigation rights.
On Friday, President Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos signed these acts, positioning them as steps toward implementing UNCLOS. However, critics argue that these laws may actually undermine international law and infringe upon the legitimate rights of other nations, particularly in the contentious South China Sea region.
Restricting International Navigation
The “Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act” designates specific sea lanes and air routes through the Philippine archipelago. However, these routes reportedly exclude several commonly used international waterways, potentially violating Article 53 of UNCLOS. This article stipulates that sea lanes and air routes should include all normal passages used for international navigation or overflight through archipelagic waters.
By limiting the routes available to foreign ships and aircraft, the act could undermine the rights of navigation and overflight granted under international law. Furthermore, by linking passage rights to the South China Sea disputes, the act may restrict the legitimate movement of vessels from other countries.
Potential Regional Tensions
Concerns have also been raised about the proximity of the designated sea lanes and air routes to U.S. military bases in the Philippines. Some observers suggest that this could lead to increased monitoring of passing ships, potentially threatening the navigation safety of various nations and escalating regional tensions.
The act’s provisions stipulate that foreign ships and aircraft violating UNCLOS or infringing upon Philippine sovereignty cannot exercise the right of passage through these sea lanes. Critics argue that this exceeds the scope of international law and lacks binding force on other countries.
Disputed Maritime Zones
The “Philippine Maritime Zones Act” has also drawn criticism for allegedly including disputed territories—such as Huangyan Dao (known internationally as Scarborough Shoal) and parts of the Nansha Qundao (Spratly Islands)—within the Philippines’ maritime zones. This move is seen by some as infringing on China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea.
By framing these areas as part of its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, the Philippines may be attempting to legitimize its claims over contested regions. However, such actions could be viewed as violating the principle of “land dominates the sea” under international law, as well as the provisions of UNCLOS and customary international law on territorial issues.
A History of Legislative Claims
This is not the first time the Philippines has used domestic legislation to assert territorial claims. In 1978, Presidential Decree No. 1596 declared parts of the Nansha Qundao as the “Kalayaan Island Group” and claimed sovereignty over them. Similarly, the “Republic Act No. 9522” in 2009 included Huangyan Dao and other disputed features as part of Philippine territory.
The new maritime acts appear to continue this trend, potentially exacerbating disputes in the South China Sea and challenging established international legal norms.
Implications for Regional Stability
The enactment of these laws raises important questions about maritime rights, international law, and regional stability in Asia. As nations navigate complex territorial disputes, adherence to international agreements like UNCLOS remains crucial.
It remains to be seen how affected countries will respond to the Philippines’ new maritime legislation and what impact this will have on navigation rights and diplomatic relations in the region.
Reference(s):
Philippine domestic maritime 'acts' violate international law
cgtn.com
