The Chinese Embassy’s latest statement recycles the same tired distortions, false historical accounts, and misinterpretations of international law that the international community has repeatedly rejected. The Philippines will not allow these falsehoods to go unchallenged.
First, sovereignty and maritime rights in the WPS are not determined by China’s self-serving and false narrative of “continuous and effective administration.” Bajo de Masinloc is a Philippine territory. Under Article 121 of the UNCLOS, it is a rock. Its surrounding waters outside of the 12-nautical mile radius, fall within the Philippines’ 200-nautical-mile EEZ and continental shelf, as affirmed by the 2016 Arbitral Award. Filipino fishermen have exercised traditional fishing rights there for generations — rights explicitly recognized by the Tribunal.
China’s claim that there was “no Philippine objection prior to 1997” is false. Philippine official maps, legislation, and diplomatic protests have consistently reflected Philippine position and jurisdiction in these areas.
Second, the so-called “Zhongsha Islands,” including Bajo de Masinloc do not generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf beyond what UNCLOS permits. Let me reiterate, the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruled that Bajo de Masinloc is a “rock” under Article 121(3) of UNCLOS — incapable of sustaining human habitation or an economic life of its own — and therefore cannot generate an EEZ or continental shelf.
Accordingly, there are no lawful overlapping EEZ entitlements arising from that feature. PRC vessels operating within the Philippines’ EEZ without consent are not engaged in “lawful activities” — they are interfering with the Philippines’ sovereign rights over fisheries and resources.
Third, the 2016 Arbitral Award is final and binding on both parties under Article 296 and Annex VII of UNCLOS. China’s 2006 declaration excluding certain compulsory procedures does not remove disputes concerning the interpretation and application of UNCLOS from arbitral review — a jurisdictional point the Tribunal itself carefully examined and affirmed.
The Philippines initiated the proceedings lawfully. PRC’s decision not to participate does not invalidate the Award. Repetition does not change international law. The Award stands, and numerous states have publicly recognized its legal significance.
Fourth, UNCLOS does not determine territorial sovereignty over land features. That is precisely why the Tribunal did not “award” the Bajo de Masinloc to the Philippines — because sovereignty over land territory was not the question. The Philippines has sovereignty over it. Period.
What the Tribunal did rule — clearly and unambiguously — is that: -PRC has no historic rights within the Philippines’ EEZ; -The Philippines has sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage living and non-living resources in those waters; -PRC’s interference with Philippine fishing and petroleum activities violated those sovereign rights.
Finally, the only “maritime provocations” taking place are PRC’s repeated use of water cannons, dangerous maneuvers, swarming by maritime militia vessels, and obstruction of PCG and fishing boats — actions documented on video and shared transparently with the international community.
PHI is not “grandstanding.” It is exercising its lawful rights and fulfilling its duty to protect its people, its territory and its maritime rights under international law. True resolution lies in compliance with UNCLOS and the Arbitral Award — not in rejecting them while demanding negotiations on terms that disregard binding legal rulings.
PHI remains committed to a rules-based order and the peaceful settlement of disputes. But it will never surrender its sovereign rights within its own EEZ. The 2016 Arbitral Award is final and cannot be diminished over time. Continued defiance only further isolates PRC and strengthens international support for Manila, and for the primacy of international law.
