Illustration: Liu Xidan/GT

 
The Philippines' enactment of the Philippine Maritime Zones (PMZ) Act and the Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes (PASL) Act is a serious violation of international laws, including the Charter of the United Nations and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This not only contravenes the Philippines' own commitments, undermines regional peace, exacerbates tensions, but also inflicts damage upon Philippines' own interests. Consequently, these laws are detrimental measures that will also cause multiple harm to regional partners while resulting in a reduction in regional peace and tranquility.

First, the Philippines' actions seriously violate the requirement of international law for coastal states to respect the territorial sovereignty of other countries before asserting maritime jurisdiction. The Philippine authorities have persistently attempted to unlawfully incorporate China's Huangyan Dao (also known as Huangyan Island) and the Nansha Qundao, as well as related waters, into their maritime areas to achieve their expansionist goals. This flagrant infringement on China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea is a clear violation of China's sovereign rights and maritime interests.

Article 2 of the PMZ Act seeks to exploit international law to endorse its territorial expansion ambitions and illegal behaviors. However, it blatantly disregards the fundamental principle of "land ruling the sea" enshrined in important international laws. The logic behind this law aims at encroaching upon China's territorial sovereignty over the South China Sea islands.

Particularly alarming is Article 8 of the PMZ Act, which audaciously claims that "all artificial islands constructed within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines shall belong to its government." Such an absurd assertion exposes their intention to expand through deceptive means, which is not only sinful but also repugnant and greed-driven, earning disdain from civilized nations worldwide. Utterly shameless!

There are more than 3,000 islands in Aegean Sea. Greece rightfully possesses over 2,000 of them, with some located merely 1-2 nautical miles away from Turkey. Similar examples can be found across numerous regions globally. Yet no country has so brazenly challenged international systems and order like what we have witnessed recently from the Philippines.

If we were to accept such unlawful reasoning put forth by the Philippines, how should Turkey then address Greece's presence in Aegean Sea? And how could the world's territory, maritime and international legal order exist?

Second, the two laws have the potential to cause significant harm to regional partners and undermine peace and tranquility. In the current context, countries surrounding the South China Sea are seeking peaceful coexistence and development with China. Unfortunately, the Philippines has manipulated the PMZ and PASL acts in a manner that inflicts widespread harm on neighboring partners, including China. This situation has resulted in multiple harm to regional peace and tranquility.

The PMZ and PASL acts contravene Article 5 of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, which emphasizes the importance of exercising self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability. This not only hampers dispute resolution efforts but also exacerbates conflicts and tensions in the South China Sea.

In particular, the waterways designated by the PASL Act fail to include all commonly utilized international waterways within the waters of the Philippine archipelago. This infringement seriously encroaches upon other countries' rights and interests while intensifying conflicts and disputes. Such provisions are evidently inconsistent with Article 53 of UNCLOS, which stipulates that "all normal passage routes used as routes for international navigation or overflight through or over archipelagic waters shall be included." Consequently, the provisions by the Philippines undermine legitimate interests held by other shipping nations.

Third, the two maritime laws are also detrimentally undermining the Philippines' own interests. The South China Sea arbitration case represented a coordinated effort by external forces to disrupt peace and stability in the region, with the intention of provoking China. Certain Philippine politicians were manipulated by foreign forces and hastily enacted the two laws in an attempt to replicate the South China Sea arbitration case. This not only strained relations with China but also incurred significant costs to the Philippines' national interests.

A few Philippine politicians have exploited the two maritime laws to betray the interests of all Filipinos, undermining the long-standing rights and interests of their country, while employing various deceptive tactics to keep the Filipino people uninformed. Such behavior is highly unethical and reprehensible. 

The PASL Act merely stipulates a limited number of passage routes, which not only infringes upon the navigation rights of other coastal nations but also significantly undermines the vital interests of the Philippines itself. These designated sea lanes are all in close proximity to US military bases in the Philippines, further entangling the country within foreign powers' geopolitical agenda and exposing it to heightened security risks. Ultimately, it is the vast Filipino population who have suffered as they had endured generations of colonization by external forces like the US.

The Philippines is utilizing domestic legislation to unlawfully restrict legitimate rights of other countries. This constitutes a grave act of territorial expansionism and infringement upon other countries' sovereignty and flagrantly violates fundamental principles enshrined in international law. Such activities not only lack support from international legal frameworks including the UN Charter but also maliciously distort basic tenets governing maritime law internationally, thereby posing serious threats to regional peace and stability.

The two maritime "evil laws" hold no binding effect on any other nation, including China. Chinese vessels will continue traversing relevant waters and waterways in accordance with established norms under international law.

The author is deputy director of Institute of Maritime Strategy Studies at China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn