|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
The Philippines’ problem with territorial sea boundaries
Nearly two decades ago, the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS was drafted in Montego Bay, Jamaica. The Philippines’ ratification came two years after it was drafted.
But, as you are very much aware of, we ratified it subject to some qualifications, including the declaration that our signing of the Convention “shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines under and arising from our Constitution.’
The 1987 Constitution in turn, says: “The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves and other submarine areas. xxx”
This is substantially the same as the definition made in the 1973 Constitution, which was in force at the time we ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Problematic boundaries
Even before the UNCLOS was drafted, the Philippines already had problems defining its national territory. ...
We know that a municipal law is binding only within the territorial limits of the sovereignty promulgating the Constitution.
In order to settle international conflicts, a legal instrument that sets out the territorial limits of the state must be supported by some recognized principle of international law. ...
The conflict between municipal law and international law, insofar as defining the national territory is concerned, became more pronounced with the drafting of the UNCLOS.
Approximate Word count = 1222
Approximate Pages = 4.9
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|