Philippines asserts arbitral win at Beijing forum
In a statement on Sunday (July 13), the embassy said the forum organised by a Chinese think tank was held two days before the ninth anniversary of the landmark ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, where the Philippines brought its case against China in 2013.
The forum 'claimed to bring together scholars, legal experts, and policymakers to engage in in-depth discussions on the historical and legal dimensions of the South China Sea,' the embassy said.
But embassy representatives who attended that gathering noted the 'predominant criticism of the [arbitral] award and of Philippine policy and actions in the [South China Sea] region.'
The embassy is headed by Ambassador Jaime FlorCruz, a veteran journalist who had reported extensively on Beijing.
During an opportunity for an intervention, the Filipino officials asserted before that audience that the ruling, along with its annexes, 'proves the validity and legality of Philippine claims and they are available for everyone to study and read.'
They also rejected the notion that the Philippines was the 'troublemaker' in the South China Sea and was refusing to engage in proper dialogue with China.
'We disagree with the notion that the Philippines is not willing to engage with China. In fact, even with the arbitral award, the Philippines has continued to make efforts to keep lines of communication open, maintain proper dialogue, and engage positively with China as well as other claimant states, both bilaterally and regionally, within the context of our legally settled claims in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) and international law,' they told the forum.
'We hope China's actions demonstrate genuine willingness to engage and to produce constructive and positive outcomes,' they said.
The Hague ruling also dismissed China's nine-dash-line claim as having no legal basis, noting that Unclos 'superseded any maritime entitlements based on historic rights in excess of the limits imposed' by that international treaty.
Meanwhile US Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement on July 12, the anniversary of the landmark ruling, urging Beijing 'to abide by the 2016 arbitral ruling and to cease its dangerous and destabilising conduct' in the South China Sea.
He also called out China for its continued defiance of the ruling, its assertion of 'unlawful and expansive maritime claims,' and aggression against its neighbours.
'Beijing's expansive claims directly infringe on the sovereign rights and jurisdictions of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia, and undermine peace, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific,' Rubio said on Saturday.
He pointed out that the 2016 arbitral ruling was a 'significant milestone and useful basis' to resolve disputes over the South China Sea.
He said the United States supports a 'free and open Indo-Pacific,' as it aims to maintain peace and stability and prioritize freedom from maritime disputes.
'We seek to preserve peace and stability, uphold freedom of navigation and overflight, maintain the free flow of trade, and oppose coercion to settle maritime disputes,' Rubio said.
Foreign Secretary Teresa Lazaro on Friday also expressed concern over China's continuing rejection of the ruling, emphasising that it 'persists with illegal, coercive, and aggressive actions under cover of a revisionist, self-serving interpretation and application of international law, particularly Unclos.'
She said the government continues to assert the sovereign rights of the Philippines, uphold international law and utilise the bilateral consultation mechanism on the South China Sea as well as the bilateral consular consultations mechanism with China to maintain dialogue and diplomacy at appropriate official levels. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Ambalat needs quiet diplomacy, not open debates
The recent pledge by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Indonesia's President Prabowo Subianto to pursue peaceful, mutually beneficial economic cooperation deserves praise for its pragmatic foresight. The pledge in June includes several promising prospects. Among them is a plan to jointly explore and develop the contested oil- and gas-rich Ambalat block in the Celebes Sea, off the eastern coast of Sabah. If this initiative proceeds, it would mark a welcome step away from the longstanding impasse over unresolved maritime boundaries between the two countries. For Malaysia, this peaceful mechanism for managing maritime territorial disputes is neither new nor unprecedented. Among ASEAN members, Malaysia pioneered the approach by signing joint development agreements — first with Thailand in 1979, and later with Vietnam in 1992 — enabling shared exploration and development of hydrocarbon reserves across vast contested areas in the Gulf of Thailand. In the context of international law, this arrangement is consistent with provisions in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which allow collaborative measures to be implemented while disputing parties seek a final resolution over the contested area. In the case of Ambalat, the intention of both countries to manage the dispute peacefully aligns with the principles embodied in the ASEAN Charter. Certain parties, though, voiced objections to jointly developing Ambalat's oil and gas resources with Indonesia. However, the public uproar also highlights a deeper issue: the misguided notion that the details of delicate negotiations and high-level meetings between leaders or government officials must be made public. Not all diplomatic negotiations are created equal, nor should they be subject to real-time public scrutiny. Some issues, especially those involving maritime territorial and boundary disputes like the Ambalat seabed, are highly technical, legally complex and inherently sensitive. Openly debating these topics risks turning nuanced discussions into populist spectacles. The reality is that maritime boundary delimitation requires expertise in international law, hydrography and history — fields in which few laypersons or politicians are truly knowledgeable. Keeping the negotiation process private, at least to a certain degree, helps prevent misunderstandings or misinterpretations that could inflame tensions or derail delicate talks. Until finalised outcomes are reached, negotiators need private space to discuss sensitive issues, test ideas, make concessions and propose creative solutions without fear of immediate political backlash or public pressure. When talks unfold under the glare of public opinion, even a hint of flexibility is often seized upon as a sign of weakness, pushing parties to retreat into rigid, uncompromising stances. At certain stages, confidentiality in negotiations — even beyond the context of the Ambalat dispute — is essential to protect national interests and security. Prematurely revealing positions can weaken Malaysia's bargaining power and expose strategic vulnerabilities. Once negotiating lines become public, adversaries can exploit them, and domestic critics can pressure leaders or negotiators into rigid stances that leave no room for compromise or manoeuvring. Beyond joint development of economic resources in the disputed maritime areas, are there alternative options to manage or resolve the Ambalat dispute peacefully? Third-party dispute settlement mechanisms are one possibility worth considering. Malaysia has previously referred its maritime sovereignty disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for adjudication, notably in cases involving the Sipadan and Ligitan islands with Indonesia, as well as Batu Puteh and two maritime features with Singapore. Nonetheless, pursuing this judicial route may not be the preferred option for Indonesia. When the ICJ awarded Sipadan and Ligitan to Malaysia in 2002, the judgment sparked protests in several Indonesian cities. Had every stage of the current Ambalat discussions been made public, nationalist fervour on either side could have derailed progress. Demanding full disclosure of every twist and turn of negotiations is unrealistic and counterproductive. In the case of Ambalat, success depends not only on what leaders decide, but also on society's willingness to trust the process. After decades of stalemate in the Ambalat dispute, we should give diplomacy the space it needs to succeed.
The Sun
6 hours ago
- The Sun
Twelve Hong Kong activists appeal convictions in landmark ‘47 democrats' case
HONG KONG: Twelve Hong Kong pro-democracy activists appealed their subversion convictions and jail terms on Monday in a national security case that has spotlighted Beijing's ongoing crackdown on dissent and drawn international criticism. The appeal stems from the '47 democrats' case, named for the number of activists who were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit subversion in 2021. The court eventually found 45 of the defendants guilty of organising and holding an unofficial primary election in July 2020 soon after Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law in response to pro-democracy protests the year before. Two defendants were acquitted. Prosecutors considered the action to be a plot to undermine the Hong Kong government. Security was tight around the West Kowloon law courts as scores of police officers, some with police dogs, patrolled the area and occasionally searched passers-by. 'They're not criminals,' said an elderly man surnamed Wong who was among around 100 people queuing to get a public ticket for the hearing. Foreign diplomats from over half a dozen countries were in attendance for this latest stage of the legal saga that began with dawn police raids on the homes of high-profile democrats in early 2021. Some rights groups and countries have condemned the case as politically motivated and called for the release of the democrats who were sentenced last November to prison terms of between four and 10 years. 'This appeal hearing is a chance for the courts to start righting the wrongs of this unprecedented mass prosecution,' said Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International's China director. Hong Kong and Chinese authorities have defended the independence of the judiciary, saying no one is above the law and the defendants have received a fair trial. The defendants were accused of attempting to establish unified pro-democracy candidates through the unofficial primary election to boost their chances of securing an unprecedented parliamentary majority. Prosecutors have said they intended to disrupt the government and even force Hong Kong's leader to resign by 'indiscriminately vetoing' budget proposals. Of the 16 democrats who pleaded not guilty during the trial, 11 have appealed their convictions, including Gordon Ng, Gwyneth Ho and Owen Chow, who were all jailed for over seven years. Prince Wong, who pleaded guilty, is appealing her sentence. The appeals are expected to take around 10 days, and also include a government request to overturn the acquittal of barrister Lawrence Lau. Erik Shum, a lawyer for two of the defendants, argued the democrats' actions were legal as lawmakers were free to vote against any bills and such votes 'could not possibly be an abuse of power'. A years-long crackdown under a China-imposed national security law has resulted in scores of arrests and the closures of liberal media outlets and civil society groups. – Reuters
The Star
6 hours ago
- The Star
A military exercise drawing together 19 nations and 35,000 forces begins in Australia
Military personnel watch a display at Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025, Australia's largest-ever war fighting drills at Shoalwater Bay Training Area, near Rockhampton, Australia, Monday, July 14, 2025. - AP MELBOURNE: The largest-ever war fighting drills in Australia, Exercise Talisman Sabre, is underway and expected to attract the attention of Chinese spy ships. Talisman Sabre began in 2005 as a biennial joint exercise between the United States and Australia. This year, more than 35,000 military personnel from 19 nations, including Canada, Fiji, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga and the United Kingdom, will take part over three weeks, Australia's defense department said on Sunday (July 13). Malaysia and Vietnam are also attending as observers. The exercise will also take part in Papua New Guinea, Australia's nearest neighbour. It is the first time Talisman Sabre activities have been held outside Australia. Chinese surveillance ships have monitored naval exercises off the Australian coast during the last four Talisman Sabre exercises and were expected to surveil the current exercise, Defense Industry Minister Pat Conroy said. "The Chinese military have observed these exercises since 2017. It'd be very unusual for them not to observe it,' Conroy told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. "We'll adjust accordingly. We'll obviously observe their activities and monitor their presence around Australia, but we'll also adjust how we conduct those exercises,' Conroy added. Conroy said the Chinese were not yet shadowing ships as of Sunday. The exercise officially started on Sunday with a ceremony in Sydney attended by Deputy Commanding General of US Army Pacific Lt. Gen. J. B. Vowell and Australia's Chief of Joint Operations Vice-Adm. Justin Jones. The exercise, showcasing Australia's defence alliance with the United States, started a day after Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese began a six-day visit to China, where he is expected to hold his fourth face-to-face meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Tuesday. Albanese said Chinese surveillance of Talisman Sabre would not be an issue raised with Xi. "That would be nothing unusual. That has happened in the past and I'll continue to assert Australia's national interest, as I do,' Albanese told reporters in Shanghai Monday. Albanese also noted that while he had visited the United States as prime minister five times, he had only been to China twice. The Australian leader has been criticised at home for failing to secure a face-to-face meeting with US President Donald Trump. "I look forward to a constructive engagement with President Trump. We have had three constructive phone conversations,' Albanese said. - AP
