Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
UNCLOS
International agreement which defined th
e limits of the territorial seas of nations a
nd the areas in which they could exploit
marine resources
1.
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and
managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters s
uperjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard
to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone,
such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;
(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention wit
h regard to:
(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;
(ii) marine scientific research;
(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment;
(c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention.
2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the e
xclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and
duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of
this Convention.
3. The rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed and subsoil shall be
Remedies
Article 279
States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concernin
g the interpretation or application of this Convention by peacef
ul means in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Char
ter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution
by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charte
r.
Archipelagic waters
Areas enclosed as internal waters by using the bas
eline method which had not been previously consi
dered as internal waters
Territorial sea
Adjacent belt of sea with a breadth of 12 nautical
miles measured from the baselines
Internal waters
All waters landwards from the baseline of the terri
tory
EEZ
extends 200 nautical miles from the baseline. The EEZ is r
ecognized in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Alt
hough it is not part of the national territory, exclusive eco
nomic benefit is reserved for the country within the zone.
Flag of convenience
refers to a state with which a vessel is registe
red for various reasons such as low or non-ex
istent taxation or low operating costs althoug
h the ship has no genuine link with the state.
Magallona vs Ermita
Facts:
In 1961, Congress passed R.A. 3046 demarcating the maritime bas
elines of the Philippines as an Archepelagic State pursuant to UNC
LOS I of 9158, codifying the sovereignty of State parties over their
territorial sea. Then in 1968, it was amended by R.A. 5446, correcti
ng some errors in R.A. 3046 reserving the drawing of baselines ar
ound Sabah.
In 2009, it was again amended by R.A. 9522, to be compliant with t
he UNCLOS III of 1984. The requirements complied with are: to sh
orten one baseline, to optimize the location of some basepoints a
nd classify KIG and Scarborough Shoal as regime of islands.
Magallona vs Ermita
Issue:
Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional?
Petitioner argues the ff:
1. it reduces the Philippine maritime territory under Article
1
2. it opens the countrys waters to innocent and sea lanes p
assages hence undermining our sovereignty and security
3. treating KIG and Scarborough as regime of islands woul
d weaken our claim over those territories.
Magallona vs Ermita
1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with acquisition or loss of territory. it is just a codified norm t
hat regulates conduct of States. On the other hand, RA 9522 is a baseline law to mark out bas
epoints along coasts, serving as geographic starting points to measure. it merely notices the in
ternational community of the scope of our maritime space.
2. If passages is the issue, domestically, the legislature can enact legislation designating route
s within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passages. but in the absen
ce of such, international law norms operate. The fact that for archipelagic states, their waters
are subject to both passages does not place them in lesser footing vis a vis continental coastal
states. Moreover, RIOP is a customary international law, no modern state can invoke its sover
eignty to forbid such passage.
3. On the KIG issue, RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046 and in fact, i
t increased the Phils. total maritime space. Moreover, the itself commits the Phils. continues
claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over KIG.
If not, it would be a breach to 2 provisions of the UNCLOS III:
Art. 47 (3): drawing of basepoints shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago.
Art 47 (2): the length of baselines shall not exceed 100 mm.
KIG and SS are far from our baselines, if we draw to include them, well breach the rules: that i
t should follow the natural configuration of the archipelago.