Introduction

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to further deliberate the practicability of enforcing the ruling of
the South China Sea Arbitration Case rendered by the Permanent Court Arbitration.
The three points are as follows:
1st Point: Bilateral Agreements
Bilateral agreements and negotiations is not the answer. China already knows that they are in position of
strength both militarily and economically and we all know that we should not negotiate from a position of
weakness. When you cite the past successful negotiation between China and others, namely Russia It is very
nave for you think that the same result will happen when Philippines negotiate with China. Russia can be
equally powerful to inflict damage to china militarily. At the moment, China does not recognise the Philippines
have such capability. Also even if there was an agreement between Russia and China, China has never
recognized border treaties signed by the PRC with other countries. Therefore, the ROC still formally claims all
parts of the Heixiazi Islands. From this we can infer that not all negotiations made with China will be honoured.
We cannot expect that negotiations and bilateral talks can settle the matter because if China still did not honor
its agreement with almost equally strong countries how much more with the Philippines.
Where big powers are concerned, might trumps right. We should continue to push for a legally binding code of
conduct on the South China Sea dispute. This will give us a counterweight and a leverage against Chinas
military and economic superiority.
Despite Chinas opposition to foreign claims and interventions, it would not invite the
consequences of employing military force against the private citizens of a third-party nation who
are conducting business in accordance with a unanimous 479-page ruling. There are citizens
from other nations conducting business here in the Philippines and if they opt in to war those
third party citizens from other nations residing here in the country will get implicated making a
huge economic impact and China would take that risk. So war is out of possible array of
consequences that you are terrified of.

Second Point: Enforcing the ruling based on technicality

We are aware that China has repeated the mantra that the arbitration was unilateral and
implies that it had not consented to arbitration as a means of settling the dispute. However there
are fundamental misconceptions that the ruling can be enforced based on legal responsibility.
China, Beijing had freely ratified the UNCLOS, a treaty that expressly empowers any nation to
initiate claims on a range of issues.
The ruling can be enforce in such a way that conflict is avoided

First, the U.S. will obtain

commitments from allies, including E.U. countries, the U.K., Japan, Australia, India, and South
Korea, to assist in a coalition to enforce UNCLOS in the South China Sea. Second, the U.S. and
allies should jointly inform China that we intend to enforce the ruling, and thereby give China the
compassion to comply quietly and save face.
By reiterating that it does not accept the arbitration, China suggests that the tribunals
pronouncements are advisory. Yet the arbitration was initiated under a section of UNCLOS
entitled Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions. Although the tribunal cannot
directly enforce the ruling, it remains the authoritative statement on Chinas legal responsibility

in this dispute. This will greatly affect the credibility of China between other nations should ever
they wont comply with the provisions of UNCLOS.

3rd Point: How to enforce the ruling

Even if there is no world police to enforce the recent ruling of The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration
(PCA) on the arbitration case initiated by the Philippines against China on the South China Sea, Philippine
senior associate justice Antonio Carpio said all is not lost. In a commentary posted on the Wall Street Journal,
Carpio said there is no world police, but the Philippines is not helpless.
There are three ways for the Philippines to affirm is exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the area and thwart
China from manipulating the natural resources even if China rubbishes off the ruling.
1) Sue the private sector partner. If a Chinese oil company brings a gas platform to Reed Bank,
within the Philippine EEZ, to extract gas, the Philippines can sue the company in a state where the
company holds its assets. Carpio wrote that the Philippines can show the court the ruling that the
gas in the Reed Bank belongs to the Philippines. The Philippines can ask the court to seize the
assets of the Chinese firm in Canada to compensate the country for the loss of the gas.
2) Seek reparations from China for damages. The Philippine magistrate pointed out that the PCA
ruling held that Chinas dredging inflicted irreparable injury to the fragile marine ecosystem in the
Spratly Islands, including Mischief Reef and Subi Reef, which form part of the Philippine continental
shelf. Under the United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a state is liable for damages for
causing harm to the marine environment of a coastal state.
Seek suspension of exploration permits. Associate Justice Carpio noted that the Philippines can
also request the UNCLOSs International Seabed Authority to suspend the four permits issued
to China to explore the seabed in the high seas beyond national jurisdiction. States that
ratified UNCLOS agreed to accept it as a package dealaccepting its provisions entirely and
not selectively. If China rejects the ruling, the Philippines can assert that China is accepting
the benefits of UNCLOS under its seabed provisions but rejecting its provisions under its
dispute settlement mechanism. Should China continue to refuse to comply with the
Courts ruling, the U.S. and allies should impose economic sanctions on China. Since
they are not complying with the PCA ruling and provisions of UNCLOS they can be
stripped down of the benefits they are accepting from UNCLOS.
Even if there is no world police and the ruling of PCA is not mandatory who then will enforce the parts of the ruling
affirming the existence of the high seas and EEZs? Under Chinas Nine Dash claim foreign military vessels and aircraft
must secure the permission of the coastal state before sailing or flying in that states EEZ. The worlds naval powers, led

by the U.S., have declared that they will sail and fly in the high seas and EEZs of the South China Sea to assert freedom of
navigation and overflight for their military and civilian vessels and aircraft. Since China cannot prevent the worlds naval
powers from asserting such freedom of navigation and overflight, an important part of the ruling will definitely be
enforced. The South China Sea can never become a Chinese lake as China intended under its nine-dash-line claim.
Enforcement of the international ruling is ultimately necessary for the defense of not only Philippine, but also
other territories. Think about this way, if China is allowed to ignore the ruling, international law and U.S.
credibility will suffer. Regional diplomats and Chinese citizen will see the Chinese Communist Party as
powerful and strategic, giving the party more followers both domestically and internationally.
[Closing]
To conclude, I would like to quote the statement of associate justice Carpio: Over time the ruling will be
enforced substantially because the world will never accept that a single state can claim ownership to almost an
entire sea that is bordered by several states. Such a precedent would mean the demise of the Law of the Sea.