Leader

NST Leader: The law of the sea

THE South China Sea is getting stormier by the day, with China pushing its maritime claims into the waters of other nations.

Beijing is battling its expansive claims on many fronts, the latest being with Malaysia when it recently told Putrajaya to halt oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea, claiming that the activities were encroaching on its territorial boundaries.

Clearly, our exploration activities are not. They are being conducted in waters about 100km from Sarawak, way within Malaysia's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). And quite rightly Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim responded thus: "This is our area."

Anwar's response is legally right, says maritime law expert Associate Professor Dr Mohd Hazmi Rusli of Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia as the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) makes this crystal clear: littoral states have exclusive sovereignty over territorial sea of 12 nautical miles and sovereign rights over EEZ of 200 nautical miles.

The layman may not know much about the difference between sovereignty and sovereign rights, but here is Hazmi's explanation: in the case of the former, the littoral states can exercise exclusive sovereignty over their territorial sea stretching 12 nautical miles from the shoreline, whereas in that of the latter, they have no sovereignty but the right to exploit resources in the 200-nautical mile stretch.

Hazmi's point is Malaysia should continue to explore and drill in its EEZ as permitted by the UNCLOS.

China's expansive claims haven't gone unchallenged. After a war of words over China's claims, the Philippines took its case to the arbitral tribunal in 2013.

On July 12, 2016, the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal ruled overwhelmingly in favour of the Philippines, stating that China's claims to historic rights and resources had no legal basis.

China has since refused to abide by the tribunal's decision, saying that the ruling was not legally binding.

This is not a right approach to take, legally speaking that is. After all, having ratified the UNCLOS, China is bound by the tribunal's ruling.

Being a country that believes in a rules-based world order, it has two choices: one is to accept the ruling or, two, is to resolve the disputes peacefully, as it said it would in an official statement then.

Treaties such as the UNCLOS are vital as they determine the relations between nations, big and small.

Clearly, there isn't an alternative to the UNCLOS. The 10 Asean nations have been trying for years to land on one.

It is unlikely for them to agree on one as China seems keen on a non-legally binding maritime code, but most Asean members prefer a legally binding one.

Nations that have ratified the UNCLOS must abide by it, if conflicts are to be avoided.

Where there are resources, there will be conflicts. And the South China Sea is packed with them.

According to one estimate, it holds five billion cubic metres of gas and 11 billion barrels of oil. Not to mention fish and other maritime resources.

Plus, there will be interference from afar given the strategic nature of the sea lane. Diplomacy is important, but it must be dictated by a nation's sovereignty and sovereign rights.

Most Popular
Related Article
Says Stories