The Manila Times
A GEOPOLITICAL analyst and former diplomat has criticized the stand of policy think tank Stratbase ADR Institute against joint energy exploration between the Philippines and China, saying it reflects flawed legal interpretations and contributes to confusion over maritime rights in the West Philippine Sea. In an interview with The Manila Times, Adolfo Paglinawan, vice president for international affairs of the Asian Century Philippines Strategic Studies Institute (ACPSSI), questioned Stratbase’s rejection of potential cooperation with China, saying its arguments rely on “circular reasoning” and unexamined assumptions about international law and maritime entitlements. Paglinawan said Stratbase’s assertion that China is an unreliable partner was based on what he described as “loaded perceptions” tied to disputes in the South China Sea. He argued that such claims lacked specificity, including references to alleged damage to Philippine assets and threats to personnel, without citing particular incidents or legal bases. The former diplomat also disputed Stratbase’s interpretation of the South China Sea arbitration award, particularly its claim that the ruling affirms exclusive Philippine rights over resources in contested waters. He said the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) provides for exclusive economic zones only in the absence of overlapping claims, noting that disputes require negotiated settlement under international law. Paglinawan cited provisions of Unclos that call for cooperation and provisional arrangements between states with competing claims. He further raised concerns over the Philippines’ legal framework, including Republic Act 12064, which he said introduced ambiguity in defining maritime zones and the scope of the so-called West Philippine Sea. He said the law blurred distinctions between sovereignty and sovereign rights — terms that carry different meanings under Unclos. Paglinawan also questioned the consistency of official positions, pointing to earlier statements by legal experts such as retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, distinguishing between sovereignty over territory and sovereign rights over resources within an exclusive economic zone. He maintained that areas such as Reed Bank, or Recto Reef, fall outside the Philippines’ 12-nautical-mile territorial sea, and are therefore subject to competing claims, making unilateral assertions of jurisdiction difficult to enforce under international law. For Paglinawan, the arbitration ruling did not resolve questions of sovereignty, noting that it explicitly avoided ruling on ownership of land features in the South China Sea. He linked current policy debates to broader geopolitical tensions, suggesting that Philippine alignment with the United States — through agreements such as the Mutual Defense Treaty, Visiting Forces Agreement, and Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement — has shaped the country’s approach to maritime disputes. He warned that rejecting joint exploration outright could limit options for addressing energy security concerns, particularly in contested areas where cooperation mechanisms operate under Unclos pending final delimitation.
Go to News Site