Who Own Spratly Islands?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2024
- The Spratly Islands, a disputed archipelago in the South China Sea, are a geopolitical flashpoint due to their strategic location along vital shipping routes and potential natural resources, including rich fishing grounds and significant reserves of gas and oil. Despite comprising over 100 islands, islets, cays, and reefs across 425,000 square kilometers, they offer less than 2 square kilometers of naturally occurring land. The islands are claimed in whole or part by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines, each asserting historical sovereignty and economic rights under various international laws, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). China bases its claim on historical maps and records, while the Philippines and Vietnam emphasize historical presence and proximity to their territories. Malaysia stakes its claim based on proximity and maintains a physical presence on several features. The strategic importance of the Spratly Islands has led to the militarization of the region, with approximately 45 islands hosting military installations from the claimant nations. Diplomatic efforts, such as the Code of Conduct negotiations between China and ASEAN, have made slow progress, while legal rulings, like the 2016 decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration favoring the Philippines, have been largely ignored by China. Recent tensions have escalated, particularly between China and the Philippines, leading to increased military cooperation and alliances among Southeast Asian nations and external powers like the United States and Japan. The Spratly Islands remain a central issue in regional security, international relations, and maritime policy in the South China Sea. Like, comment, and subscribe for more in-depth coverage of global economies and geopolitics. Watch complete video and do not forget to visit our channel for more interesting videos.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0:00 China Taiwan Vietnam Brunei Philippines: Who Owns Spratly Islands?
2:29 Ownership Claims
4:22 PRC & ROC Claims
7:57 Philippines Claim
10:02 Vietnam’s Claim
14:29 Malaysia Claim
17:21 Latest Advancements
19:54 End Note
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy me a coffee: buymeacoffee.com/thepacificre...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support us at Patreon: / thepacificreport
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join us on our WhatsApp Channel with the link below:
whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaIZ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Media Links:
Website: www.thepacificreports.com
UA-cam: / @pacificreport
Patreon: / thepacificreport
Facebook: / thepacificreportpr
Instagram: / @thepacificreports
Threads: www.threads.net/@thepacificre...
Twitter: / pacific_reports
TikTok: / thepacificreport
Tumblr: www.tumblr.com/thepacificreport
Mix: mix.com/thepacificreport
OK: ok.ru/profile/589448821950
Pintrest: / thepacificreport
#southchinaseadispute #southeastasia #whoownspratlyisland #spratlyislands #Philippines #southchinasea #lawrencewong #ferdinandmarcosjr
Disclaimer:
The content in this video reflects the author(s)' thoughts and does not represent the official viewpoint of The Pacific Report; viewers are recommended to conduct their own research and seek expert advice before relying on the information provided.
Who owns the Paracel Islands?
ua-cam.com/video/75bFY0V3wfM/v-deo.html
it's not just South China Seas we have WEST PHILIPPINE SEAS on that part of Waters... All Countries has HISTORY that's include our ANCESTORS living even before Spanish Colonization so do more Fact Research... SABAH is Originally own by Sultanate of the Philippines not own by Malaysia.
The spratlys is a municipality of Palawan. The entire spratlys is owned by the republic of the Philippines. Under UNCLOS laws of the sea. also acknowledges by Spain and the USA. By act of the arbitration in Hague it’s ours legally.
The word China sea overlapping the spratlys is a wrong description. Find another one that fits.
Philippines the real owner🇵🇭
All of the WPS 200 EEZ from the base line of the Philippines territory is own by the Philippines base on the treaty of paris between US and Spain and further enhance the coverage by treaty of Washington 1896
Rightfully, Legally, Historically, Geographically, Geologically, Biogeographically part of the Philippines, and Ecologically, Culturally part the Whole of the Philippines Archipelagic States and Maritime Natural Domain. Vietnam, China is both a Continental, Coastal States, while the Philippines is a Naturally an Archipelagic Country and naturally, historically, culturally Maritime Island States. Malaysians claim is still based on North Borneo, an illegally Occupied and Stolen Land by Malaysian Federation in Collusion with it's British Overlords deceptively taken away from the rightful Owners(Sulu Sultanate)from which the Philippines, inherited it's Territorial rights and ancestral dominion.
Sulu/PH needs to resolve 3 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia. Firstly, Sulu needs to show undisputable proof that earlier, the Brunei Sultanate (original owner) gave North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of the 29/12/1877 agreement (consisting of 4 agreements) signed by the Brunei Sultanate that grants the whole of North Borneo to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and are kept at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” has been used, and it has never been challenged or protested by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into a British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946), and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia. Secondly, let's assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. The Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and the Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and the US relinquished North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol of 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. In the end, Sulu has nothing. Thirdly, PH claims North Borneo (Sabah) is null and void. For any colonized colony that seeks independence, the territory (sovereignty) is based on what has been given by their colonizer. In this regard, the principle of uti posseditis juris is applicable, acceptable, and recognized internationally. PH got their independence from the US in 1946 and under this principle, there is NO North Borneo. Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay. The UN has recognized Sabah in Malaysia since 1963.
There is a court case recorded in 2001 by ICJ (International Court of Justice, The Hague) about the Philippines' claims on North Borneo. It is a special 37-page report by ICJ that was published in 2001 and is easily accessible from the ICJ official website. It was a trial within a trial in the main court case between Malaysia and Indonesia over the ownership of the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan in Sabah. Philippines which is not a party to the trial requested permission to intervene. To comply with Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, the Philippines stated the objectives for the intervention (Section 7 & 84) namely, to safeguard and preserve the Philippines' historical and legal rights (only found in the 1973 PH Constitution) over North Borneo and to inform the court of the effect or effect of the court outcomes of the trial on its claim to the territories. In that trial, Philippines lawyers explained their case especially the Sulu-Ovenbeck 1878 agreement (primal reference) and related information to the court (Section 44 & 83). The same 15 main court judges were sitting at the bench and Malaysian and Indonesian lawyers too were present. On 23 October 2001, by a 14 to 1 vote, the court rejected the Philippine's request on the ground that there is “no interest of legal nature” (Section 93). (Meaning Sulu/PH claim on Sabah is null and void) Type the statement below and go to the official ICJ website (a 37-page report): INTIZRNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN APPLICATION BY THE PHILIPPINES FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE JUDGMENT OF 23 OCTOBER 2001
Belong to the philippines we also have old map from 1600 that Belong to philippines
During spanish occupation it's understood to be part of the Philippines
The Spratly Islands(known locally in the Philippines as Kalayaan Group of Islands) is under the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Kalayaan(it's Town Center is centered at Pag-asa Island), under the Province of Palawan, in which the Kalayaan Group of Islands is considered a sub-archipelago part of the Greater Palawan Archipelago, which includes Archipelagoes of Calamianes, Bacuit, Balabac, Cuyo and Kalayaan.
Vietnam and Malaysia’s Claims are also quite Hideous, Deceptive and equally Greedy as it’s Chinese Communists counterparts in terms of Maritime Expansionism and Territorial Grabbing. If China could be cut from the Picture, it’s these two in which had many recorded & continuously Expansionist Agenda and Revisionist Activities in regards to their targeted Claims of Philippine Territories and Maritime Waters.
PH has the right to claim the EEZ based on UNCLOS 1982 just like any country surrounding the South China Sea including Vietnam and Malaysia. But UNCLOS never deals with sovereignty.
When you mentioned that the Kalayaan Group of Islands is under the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Kalayaan under the Province of Palawan, I believe there is legislation for it to be able to have jurisdiction on the territory. What is the name of that legislation? Why it is not clearly stated in the 1935 (PH Commonwealth), 1946, and 1973 PH Constitution? Which is the supreme law of the land between the PH Constitution and that legislation about Kalayaan?
"This is the first time that Philippine President has stated that Philippine Territory is defined by the 1898 Treaty of Paris, as clarified by the 1900 Treaty of Washington which stated that Philippine Territory includes all island of the Philippine archipelago laging outside the lines of Treaty of Paris. This is factually, legally and historically correct."
Kababayan paki basa ang Treaty of Washington 1900 madali naman igoogle yan. Para may idea ka kung ano ang mga" ALL ISLANDS"
Not PBBM is the first time claiming those Philippines 🇵🇭 territories in fact his father ( FPFEM ) administration neighbor countries even china cannot enter into that territories even cannot occupy totally by Malaysia 🇲🇾 Sabah at that time Philippine has strong military firepower than china & other Asian country except Japan. Actually Philippines sent troops to help South Korea 🇰🇷 to fight against china & North Korea 🇰🇵 if you remember battle of yultong.
PH was colonized by the Spanish and the US before gaining her independence in 1946. Therefore, applying the principle of uti posseditis juris is justified as it is an internationally accepted and recognized approach by ICJ in resolving any sovereignty dispute. PH got what was given by the US under the Treaty of Manila. Historical evidence is no longer valid. The South China Sea outcrops were not stated in the territories under the Treaty of Manila 1946 and the Treaty of Paris 1898. If to consider the Treaty of Washington 1900, it only mentioned 3 islands namely Cagayan, Sibutu, and Sulu. The outcrops in the Spratly’ are just rocks (not islands) as categorized by PCA in 2016. The Treaty of Washington 1900 mentioned islands outside the Treaty of Manila 1946 is ambiguous. To what extent is the coverage for all the “islands” beyond the Treaty of Manila without definite coordinates? What are the outermost coordinates under the Treaty of Washington? Guam? Palau? Marianas? All these are truly islands, not rocks.
U r wrong.u watch too much CNN et al.
Just being neglected before
Wrong, Philippines also based its claim over Spratly Islands historically via 1900 Treaty of Washington. See 1874 Archipielago Filipino Hoja II (Spanish official map of the Philippine Archipelago), 1953 Philippine Island Southwestern Part (Official map of the Philippines published by US government) and 1879 Derrotero del Archipielago Filipino (Spanish official printed document with Philippine map). These historical documents 100% shows that Spratly Islands really part of Philippines historically.
PH was colonized by the Spanish and the US before gaining her independence in 1946. Therefore, applying the principle of uti posseditis juris is justified as it is an internationally accepted and recognized approach by ICJ in resolving any sovereignty dispute. PH got what was given by the US under the Treaty of Manila. Historical evidence is no longer valid. The South China Sea outcrops were not stated in the territories under the Treaty of Manila 1946 and the Treaty of Paris 1898. If to consider the Treaty of Washington 1900, it only mentioned 3 islands namely Cagayan, Sibutu, and Sulu. The outcrops in the Spratly’ are just rocks (not islands) as categorized by PCA in 2016. The Treaty of Washington 1900 mentioned islands outside the Treaty of Manila 1946 is ambiguous. To what extent is the coverage for all the “islands” beyond the Treaty of Manila without definite coordinates? What are the outermost coordinates under the Treaty of Washington? Guam? Palau? Marianas? All these are truly islands, not rocks.
@@hopelope1703 Wrong, the 1900 Treaty of Washington does not mentioned 3 Islands only it clearly says "Spain relinquished to the United States all title and claim of title, which she may have had at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace of Paris, to ANY and ALL ISLANDS BELONGING TO THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO, lying outside the lines described in Article III of that Treaty and particularly to the islands of Cagayan, Sulu and Sibutu and their dependencies, and agrees that all such islands shall be comprehended in the cession of the Archipelago as fully as if they had been expressly included within those lines." As I said Spratly Islands has been part of Philippine Archipelago during Spanish colonization of the Philippines. See and read the historical documents I mentioned above. On page 1 of 1879 Derrotero del Archipielago Filipino (published by Spanish Government), with geographical coordinates, Spratly Island has been marked inside the Philippine Archipelago. While on page 117 Spratly Islands is also named by Spain as "Archipelagic Banks of Paragua (Palawan)." It also mentioned on this document that Spanish government in Manila under the command of Claudio Montero surveyed the Spratly Islands and marked it as part of Philippine Archipelago in his 1875 official Philippine Map (Carta General Archipielago Filipino) which was republished later in 1900 by US.
@@justinpatricklopez7714 Ha ha ha ha ha. Read and understand what is uti posseditis juris. The 1898 and 1900 agreements are between Spain and the US. Nothing concerned with PH except later under the Treaty of Manila 1946 between the US and PH. An island and a rock are 2 different things.
@@hopelope1703 1946 Treaty of Manila say, "Article VII. The Republic of the Philippines agrees to assume all continuing obligations assumed
by the United States of America under the Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and
Spain concluded at Paris on the 10th day of December, 1898, by which the Philippine Islands were ceded to the United States , of America, and under the Treaty between the United States of America and Spain concluded at Washington on the 7th day of November, 1900."
There is nothing to concern with the 1946 Treaty of Manila. The Philippines has been assuming continues obligation to control Spratly Islands under the 1900 Treaty of Washington. And just like I told you Spratly Islands has been included in the 1900 Treaty of Washington. Before UNCLOSE proclaimed all the features of Spratly Islands are rocks, historically some features of it are widely acknowledged as Islands.
Since China vehemently telling the Philippines to assume its obligations under 1900 Treaty of Washing which includes Spratly Islands. China should respect the 1900 Treaty of Washington as well; and stop harassing Filipino Seafarers and stealing other territories of the Philippines like Spratly Islands.
@@justinpatricklopez7714 Ha ha ha ha ha. As I told you earlier, the 1900 agreement only mentioned "islands" and nothing else. But PCA categorized those outcrops in the South China Sea as "rocks" and not islands. And you still labeled it as the Spratly Islands. If you are rightly true, the territories under PH should have shown it clearly in 1935 (PH Commonwealth), 1946, and 1973 PH Constitution where PH has sovereignty and jurisdiction. Surprisingly, it was only established in the 1987 PH Constitution and the details are in the 2009 Baseline Law (RA 9522). Furthermore, if to adhere to the 1900 agreement, Guam is rightly yours as it is an island situated outside of the territory under the Treaty of Paris and formerly belonged to Spain. But why does it belong to the US?
All of Spratly is within the Philippines EEZ HENCE ALL OF IT IS THE PHILIPPINES OWNERSHIP
Im not malaysian brunei and filiphine but that sperate island in zee of brunei bro
@@adiananggaito u dont know anything about the eez geography 💀 it is clearly belongs to the philippines it is far away from brunei
Do not be too sure.
noob
Do you live in the parallel world? In the real world, Philippine ships cannot enter the South China Sea
😂❤😊 WHO OWNS SPRATLEY ISLANDS? GOD
definitely NOT CHINA
Simple. The west side belongs to Malaysia while the east side belongs to Indonesia.
This historical claim BS acts as if there were no locals in the future Philippine islands. Locals at the time were seafarers for god's sake!
Philippines has very old map . We assert our ownership of spratly islands. Philippines is the islands of the seas
Who called it spratly? British?
Very informative.
The Philippines claim in the Spratleys and Scarborough shoal is supported by the 1898 Treaty of Paris as magnified, amended by the 1900 Treaty of Washington, and the 1734 Velarde map of the Philippines under the Spanish rule.
Philippines claim is in accord with 1982 UNCLOS and the 2016 Permanent court arbitral award at the Hague
China's illegal presence and creeping expansion within the Philippine Exclusive. Economic Zone is a blatant disregard to international rule based order UNCLOS.
China's 1947 nine-dash line claim was invalidated by the UNCLOS Permanent Court of arbitration at the Hague in 2016...
China is among the first countries who signed the UNCLOS in 1982 and ratified it in 1994. But China now refuses to follow the rule based order of UNCLOS and rejects the arbitral court's' ruling.
How in the world China occupied Spratlys without our gov't noticing even the constructions in 2012 or b4 2012. Did someone sold Spratlys to China from someone in the Phils?
I think the construction started during the Arroyo administration. They practically allowed it, cozying up to each other. Remember the ZTE deal? I may be wrong, but it’s what i remember.
ask duterte how
@@basha300 2012 pa nacomplete construction sa Spratlys, don't live up with your name....🧠
@@toriahmyworldtas ngmala frozen n c dutae kinanta nya let it go? g n g much? 😂😂😂
@@basha300 ung hate mo yellow turned pink na pink...💔💔💔...lols..
The Spratly island Indisputablly belongs to the Philippines under the Treaty of Washington 1900 between Spain & US which amended, clarify, certified & amplified laying outside the Treaty lines in the Spanish-US Treaty of Paris in 1898 and UNCLOS is basically not the best option but the Uti Possidestis Juris principle is the best choice because it will make all claimants obeys & abides to it regardless if is against their interest
My query is that PH was colonized by the Spanish and later by the US before gained its independence in 1946. Therefore, applying the principle of uti posseditis juris is justified as it is an internationally accepted and recognized approach by ICJ in resolving any sovereignty dispute. PH got what was given by the US under the 1946 Treaty of Manila. Historical evidence is no longer valid. The South China Sea outcrops were not stated in the territories under the Treaty of Manila 1946 and the Treaty of Paris 1898. However, the Treaty of Washington 1900 stated that all “islands” beyond the 1898 Treaty particularly the 3 islands namely Cagayan, Sibutu, and Sulu belong to the US and later claim by PH. But those outcrops in the Spratly’ are defined as “rocks” (not islands) by PCA in 2016. Thus, the claim by PH is ambiguous and cannot apply to all the “rocks” in the South China Sea. The statement stating the Treaty of Washington in the Treaty of Manila 1946 served no purpose. Furthermore, if those outcrops are truly under PH, it should have been clearly stated in 1935 (PH Commonwealth), 1946, and 1973 PH Constitution where it has sovereignty and jurisdiction. Surprisingly, it was only established in the 1987 PH Constitution and the details are in the 2009 Baseline Law (RA 9522).
@@hopelope1703 the Philippine has very strong claims covered by the the 3 treaties govern Philippine territory especially Treaty of Washington in 1900 is under Philippine sovereign territory everyone is trespassing & illegal occupation of sovereign territory and your reply is misleading & misinterpretation of the facts 1)PCA said in the Spratly island is rocks is under 1982 UNCLOS but under Uti Possidestis Juris principle is above UNCLOS even it against or violation in it's article & etc of UNCLOS is excepted under Uti Possidestis Juris principle 2nd the your narrative is misinterpretation & misleading of the 3 treaties govern Philippine territory & historic claims doesn't count under Uti Possidestis Juris principle is totally false narrative
@@adamrichard1641 Ha ha ha ha ha. That is your own interpretation. I'm just looking at it from the legal context based on acceptable international law. It should be reflected in what happened in reality. That is why even the US Navy sailed beyond the 12 nautical miles of the Chinese-occupied "rocks" and not within. This means the US acknowledges the rights of the Chinese claims on those outcrops they occupied under UNCLOS. If the rocks belonged to PH, this event would not have happened. Uti posseditis juris and UNCLOS are 2 different things. The former is the principle accepted internationally about disputes on sovereignty between states while the latter deals with maritime issues. Try reading the report published by ICJ concerning this issue.
@@hopelope1703 you are laughing at own foolishness, ignorance & misinterpretation of facts to justify certain narrative its true that Uti Possidestis Juris & UNCLOS are different but Uti Possidestis Juris take precedent/excepted over UNCLOS ruling even if that means any signatory nation violated any article on UNCLOS or its ruling and awards if you really read any that is
@@adamrichard1641 Ha ha ha ha ha. For disputes on sovereignty between states, you only refer to ICJ at The Hague. This court will refer to other internationally acceptable conventions in making their final decision. This includes UNCLOS as the reference concerning maritime issues such as the true meaning of an "island". Similarly, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 regarding treaties. For UNCLOS, read Article 121 (1 to 3), and do not omit the sentence "Except as provided for in paragraph 3" in Para 2. And also, read the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969. Article 31 (1) on the General rule of interpretation. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. The word “rocks” was prescribed by PCA in 2016 in their judgment regarding features in the South China Sea cannot be interpreted as similar or comparable to the meaning of “islands” in the Treaty of Washington 1900. A rock is a rock and cannot be called an island. Name-calling denotes you are on the defensive. Rebut with facts and references.
Spratly and Sabah are both them belong to Rep. of the Phil.,China ( Spratly ) at Malaysia ( Sabah ) interest in our own territory.they get it illigal at all. Coz of Grediness and military power.
Sulu/PH needs to resolve 3 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia. Firstly, Sulu needs to show undisputable proof that earlier, the Brunei Sultanate (original owner) gave North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of the 29/12/1877 agreement (consisting of 4 agreements) signed by the Brunei Sultanate that grants the whole of North Borneo to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and are kept at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” has been used, and it has never been challenged or protested by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into a British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946), and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia. Secondly, let's assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. The Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and the Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and the US relinquished North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol of 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. In the end, Sulu has nothing. Thirdly, PH claims North Borneo (Sabah) is null and void. For any colonized colony that seeks independence, the territory (sovereignty) is based on what has been given by their colonizer. In this regard, the principle of uti posseditis juris is applicable, acceptable, and recognized internationally. PH got their independence from the US in 1946 and under this principle, there is NO North Borneo. Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay. The UN has recognized Sabah in Malaysia since 1963.
Malaysia have some military base at there can land military aircraft.That why they not worried to much.i hear they have more 10 military base at claim area 😂
We do, but yet vietnam took amboyna cay which is part of our EEZ. Shameful neighbour.
The paracels is owned by Vietnam. Never China.
How about: The Islands belong to the people who were there before Europe came along!
check the 1900 revised Treaty of Paris or 1900 Washington Treaty the case between US and Spain which decided on the control of the islands outside the treaty line. The US won the case and paid extra money to include those islands. which worked in favor of the Philippines' current right.
My opinion. PH was colonized by the Spanish and later by the US before gaining its independence in 1946. Therefore, applying the principle of uti posseditis juris is justified as it is an internationally accepted and recognized approach by ICJ in resolving any sovereignty dispute. PH got what was given by the US under the 1946 Treaty of Manila. Historical evidence is no longer valid. The South China Sea outcrops were not stated in the territories under the Treaty of Manila 1946 and the Treaty of Paris 1898. However, the Treaty of Washington 1900 stated that all “islands” beyond the 1898 Treaty particularly the 3 islands namely Cagayan, Sibutu, and Sulu belong to the US and later claim by PH. But those outcrops in the Spratly’ are defined as “rocks” (not islands) by PCA in 2016. Thus, the claim by PH is ambiguous and cannot apply to all the “rocks” in the South China Sea. The statement stating the Treaty of Washington in the Treaty of Manila 1946 served no purpose. Furthermore, if those outcrops are truly under PH, it should have been clearly stated in 1935 (PH Commonwealth), 1946, and 1973 PH Constitution where it has sovereignty and jurisdiction. Surprisingly, it was only established in the 1987 PH Constitution and the details are in the 2009 Baseline Law (RA 9522).
@@hopelope1703 so whose claim is right? china's or Phs considering that those sea features are withing EEZ plus UNCLOS ruiling?
@@meanbumboy3108 My opinion is that PH has the rights to her EEZ but those outcrops and territorial sea surounding it belongs to who ever occupied it. That is why even US Navy sailed beyond the 12 nautical miles of Chinese occupied rocks.
@@meanbumboy3108 UNCLOS do not deals with sovereignty but only maritime.
@@hopelope1703 It's plain and simple who's got the right to control the area. history and international rights favors the Philippines that's it.
The Spratly islands are US territory. It was a concession between the Japanese Empire and the U.S under the San Francisco Treaty that clearly states. Taiwan (Formosa), Spratly islands, Penghu and the Paracel Islands. As well as Okinawa. The U.S annexed all of these. All these islands fell under the USMG ( U.S military government) at the end of the day this will end with the U.S because it started with the U.S. the Philippines signed that Treaty as well there for all legal claims are void and null.
Own by the sultanate of sulu
Look at the globe or map you will found out who owns.
In Google Map there's NO West Philippine Sea but South China Sea... LOL!
'South China Sea' is an imperialist term. We should use 'Southeastern Asian Sea' since the majority belongs to the SEA countries, only a minor part belongs to China and Taiwan.
@@titaniauranus We have vast Philippine Sea located on the East of Philippines not West. The Island that we SEA countries are grabbing belongs to China but went to Japan after Japanese occupation here in South East Asia during WW2, and since China are too weak before they can't contest the Island after WW2 and we South East Asia are starting to occupying the Dispute Island which later on Japan turn over it to China. Look at Vietnam and Malaysia they don't have much conflict with China coz they have better Diplomacy with China only us Filipino with too High EGO and PRIDE is having conflict with China with the Incited of America which you know what American really want but WAR. LOL!
@@pillow2k Why do you keep saying LOL after sentences? As if this dispute is funny at all?
@@titaniauranus Isn't it laughable how stupid the situation we're in? WPS conflict is just a coverup by our addict president who's a dog of biden so that american can have a reason to Garrison here in Philippines but in reality they are just using us Filipino in a Proxy War in the incoming Taiwan War, American knew how to play the Filipino emotions we are hard headed easy to sway, anger first before logic and of course we have High Ego and Pride even we are wrong we will insist we are right! Hahaha!
don't expect that the philippines will go to war, the Americans are just fooling you, they are only used in the philippines😂😂😂😂
Bingo
dont worry about us philippines is under the war everyday
John Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar said..... all country on this planet should not trust the Americans.......