EXCLUSIVE: Carpio on South China Sea dispute

Summary

In this interview, a Justice discusses the implications of a tribunal ruling on jurisdiction in the South China Sea dispute, highlighting that the Philippines' case proceeds to the merits phase. The Justice emphasizes the tribunal's rejection of China's objections on sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation, viewing the ruling as an initial victory. He also addresses the US Navy's freedom of navigation operations, the potential for China to adopt the US position on maritime transit, and the importance of international law in resolving territorial disputes, stressing the need for a peaceful resolution through arbitration.

Takeaways

• 📜 The tribunal's ruling on jurisdiction means the case will proceed to the merits phase, where the Philippines will present evidence against China's claims in the South China Sea.
• 🏆 The initial victory for the Philippines is significant as it allows the tribunal to consider the legality of the 'Nine-Dash Line' and the status of certain geological features.
• 🔍 The tribunal has jurisdiction on seven submissions, while the remaining seven are reserved for consideration after the merits are determined, indicating the complexity and interconnection of the issues.
• 🇨🇳 China's objections to the proceedings, based on sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation, were rejected by the tribunal, which found the case does not involve these issues.
• 🗣️ The Philippines' legal team believes they have answered all questions from the tribunal satisfactorily, both orally and in writing, contributing to the favorable ruling.
• ⛽️ The halt of oil exploration at Recto Bank due to the arbitration case indicates the importance of the tribunal's decision on maritime entitlements.
• 🚢 The US Navy's freedom of navigation operations within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef is a demonstration of the US's stance on international waters, separate from the Philippines' case.
• 🌏 China's inconsistent behavior in international waters, such as sailing through the Mediterranean without permission, highlights the need for a unified approach to maritime law.
• 🤝 The territorial dispute in the South China Sea remains unresolved, as China refuses compulsory arbitration, and a regional agreement similar to the Pact of Bogota is suggested for peaceful resolution.
• 🏝️ The South China Sea dispute is not just about resources but also about China's assertion of power and its implications for international law and norms.
• 🕰️ The tribunal's decision is expected by mid-2016, with the Philippines' legal team confident in their preparedness to defend their claims in the merits phase.

Q & A

What does the tribunal's ruling on jurisdiction mean for the Philippines?

The tribunal's ruling on jurisdiction means that the proceedings will continue on the merits, allowing the Philippines to present its evidence on why the nine-dash lines are void and certain geologic features are entitled to only 12 nautical miles instead of 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones.

Can the tribunal's decision on jurisdiction be considered a victory for the Philippines?

Yes, the tribunal's decision can be considered an initial victory for the Philippines as it allows the case to proceed to the merits phase, which is what the Philippines wanted.

What is the significance of the seven submissions that the tribunal reserved consideration for?

The seven submissions are significant because they are intertwined with the merits of the case, and the tribunal's decision to reserve consideration indicates that these issues cannot be decided without understanding the factual context, which has not yet been presented.

How did the Philippines' position on the tribunal deciding jurisdiction and merits together affect the proceedings?

The Philippines' position influenced the tribunal's approach to bifurcate the proceedings, having a separate hearing on jurisdictional issues due to China's position paper on jurisdiction, which led to the current situation where some issues are reserved for later consideration.

What are the two principal objections by China on jurisdiction that the tribunal addressed?

China's two principal objections were that the Philippines raised sovereignty issues and involved maritime boundary delimitation, which China claimed should not be subjected to compulsory arbitration. The tribunal rejected these objections, stating the case does not involve sovereignty issues or maritime boundary delimitations.

How did the US Navy's actions affect the arbitration case?

The US Navy's actions, sailing within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef, were part of their freedom of navigation operations and do not directly influence the arbitration case. However, such actions reflect the broader international stance on freedom of navigation beyond territorial seas.

What is the difference between the territorial dispute and the maritime dispute in the South China Sea?

The territorial dispute involves claims over land and sovereignty, while the maritime dispute concerns the rights and entitlements under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), such as exclusive economic zones and continental shelves.

Why is the Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea different from a dispute settlement mechanism?

The COC is intended to regulate conduct at sea to prevent conflicts, whereas a dispute settlement mechanism under UNCLOS is designed to resolve maritime entitlements and territorial disputes through legal processes like arbitration.

What is the expected timeline for the tribunal's ruling on the merits of the case?

The tribunal is expected to deliver its ruling on the merits by mid-2016, based on the typical timeline of four to six months from the case submission for decision.

How does the Philippines plan to ensure China honors the tribunal's ruling if it goes against China's interests?

The Philippines plans to seek international community support to convince China to abide by the ruling, leveraging China's desire to be seen as a responsible member of the international community and its reliance on global trade and cooperation.

What is the role of the G7 and ASEAN in supporting the arbitration process?

The G7 and ASEAN have expressed their support for the arbitration process as a peaceful means of dispute resolution, and they expect all parties involved to respect the tribunal's decision once it is rendered.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Tribunal Ruling on Jurisdiction: A Preliminary Victory for the Philippines

The interviewee discusses the significance of the tribunal's ruling on jurisdiction, which allows the Philippines to present evidence on the merits of the case. The ruling is seen as an initial victory for the Philippines, rejecting China's objections that the case involves sovereignty and boundary delimitation. The tribunal has jurisdiction over seven submissions, while the remaining seven are reserved for consideration with the merits. The interviewee emphasizes that the Philippines' stance was to decide jurisdiction and merits together, and the tribunal's bifurcation was due to China's position paper. The tribunal's decision on the non-involvement of sovereignty and boundary delimitation issues is highlighted as a rejection of China's principal objections.

05:00

🛳️ US Warship's Navigation and Its Impact on the Arbitration Case

The conversation shifts to the recent move by the US, where a warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef, and its implications for the arbitration case. The US Navy's action is framed within the context of freedom of navigation operations, reflecting the majority view that military vessels should not need permission to sail beyond territorial waters. The interviewee points out China's inconsistency in its stance, given its recent naval activities in the Mediterranean Sea and near Alaskan waters, suggesting that China may eventually adopt the US position on this matter. The US's stance is separate from the Philippines' position on the exploitation of natural resources within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and the interviewee clarifies that the US is supporting a peaceful resolution through arbitration rather than taking sides in the dispute.

10:02

🌐 Sovereignty and Territorial Disputes: The Need for a Regional Agreement

The interviewee addresses the complexity of resolving sovereignty and territorial disputes in the South China Sea. While the maritime dispute can be settled through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), territorial disputes require mutual agreement for compulsory arbitration, which China has refused. The interviewee suggests that an agreement similar to the Pact of Bogota, where all territorial disputes are submitted to compulsory arbitration, could be a solution. Such an agreement would prevent territorial wars and promote the rule of law in Asia. The Code of Conduct (COC) is distinguished from a dispute settlement mechanism, being a set of regulations for behavior at sea rather than a means to resolve territorial claims.

15:02

🏆 Anticipating the Tribunal's Decision and China's Response

The interviewee anticipates that the tribunal will rule that China cannot claim the entire South China Sea and will be limited to what UNCLOS allows. The expectation is that the decision will be supported by the international community, potentially isolating China. The challenge of enforcing the ruling against China's initial position to ignore any adverse ruling is discussed. The interviewee believes that international pressure and China's desire to be seen as a responsible global actor will encourage compliance with international law. The support of the G7 and the EU for the arbitration approach is highlighted, and the interviewee expresses confidence in the Philippines' legal team to defend the country's claims in the merits phase of the case.

Keywords

💡Tribunal

A tribunal is a court or judicial body that has the authority to adjudicate disputes. In the context of the video script, it refers to the international arbitration body handling the case between the Philippines and China over maritime jurisdiction. The tribunal's ruling on jurisdiction is a pivotal point in the video, as it allows the case to proceed to the merits phase, where evidence will be presented on the validity of the 'nine-dash line' and the classification of certain features in the South China Sea.

💡Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority of a court or tribunal to hear and decide cases. In the script, the tribunal's ruling on jurisdiction is crucial as it determines whether the international body has the right to continue the proceedings on the merits of the case. The Philippines views the tribunal's affirmation of jurisdiction as an initial victory, as it allows for the case to move forward and address the substantive issues at hand.

💡Nine-Dash Line

The 'Nine-Dash Line' is a demarcation line claimed by China to indicate its territorial claims in the South China Sea. The line is significant in the video as it represents the basis of China's extensive maritime claims, which the Philippines is challenging. The script discusses the Philippines' intention to present evidence as to why this line is considered void under international law.

💡Low Tide Elevation

A low tide elevation is a feature that is submerged at high tide and exposed at low tide. In the script, the Philippines argues that certain geologic features in the South China Sea should be classified as low tide elevations, which are not entitled to a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ), but only to a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea. This classification is important for determining the maritime rights and boundaries in the disputed area.

💡Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

An Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a maritime zone prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), within which a coastal state has special rights to explore and exploit marine resources. The script discusses the Philippines' contention that certain features are not entitled to an EEZ, which is a central issue in the arbitration case as it affects the rights to resources in the South China Sea.

💡Bifurcate

To bifurcate a legal proceeding means to split it into two separate parts, often to address different issues. In the script, the Philippines initially wanted the tribunal to decide on jurisdiction and merits together, but due to China's position paper, the tribunal was forced to bifurcate the proceedings, addressing jurisdiction separately first.

💡Position Paper

A position paper is a document outlining a party's stance on a particular issue. In the context of the video, China submitted a position paper on jurisdictional issues without participating in the arbitration, which influenced the tribunal's decision to bifurcate the proceedings.

💡Sovereignty

Sovereignty refers to the supreme power or authority of a state to govern itself without any interference from outside sources. The script mentions China's objections to the arbitration on the grounds that it involves sovereignty issues, which China believes should not be subject to compulsory arbitration.

💡Maritime Dispute

A maritime dispute refers to a conflict between states over rights and boundaries in maritime areas. The video script discusses the maritime dispute in the South China Sea, focusing on the Philippines' efforts to resolve it through international arbitration under UNCLOS.

💡UNCLOS

UNCLOS stands for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is an international treaty that outlines the rights and responsibilities of states in their use of the world's oceans. The script emphasizes the importance of UNCLOS in determining maritime entitlements and resolving disputes in the South China Sea.

💡International Arbitration

International arbitration is a method of resolving disputes between states or other international entities through a neutral third party. The script discusses the Philippines' pursuit of international arbitration as a peaceful means to settle the maritime dispute with China.

💡Freedom of Navigation

Freedom of navigation is the right of vessels to navigate international waters without interference from coastal states. The script mentions the US Navy's actions as part of freedom of navigation operations, which challenge China's claims in the South China Sea and support the principle of unimpeded passage for both commercial and military vessels.

💡Territorial Sea

The territorial sea is a belt of coastal waters extending at least 12 nautical miles from a state's coastline, over which the state has sovereignty. The script discusses the distinction between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone, particularly in the context of China's claims and the US Navy's operations.

💡Code of Conduct (COC)

The Code of Conduct (COC) refers to a set of rules or guidelines intended to regulate behavior and prevent conflicts. In the script, the COC is mentioned as a mechanism to regulate conduct at sea, separate from dispute settlement mechanisms, aiming to prevent conflicts and promote peaceful interactions among states in the South China Sea.

Highlights

The tribunal's ruling on jurisdiction allows the proceedings to continue on the merits, with the Philippines presenting evidence against the Nine-Dash Line.

The tribunal's initial ruling is considered a victory for the Philippines as it addresses preliminary jurisdictional issues.

Seven submissions on jurisdiction were ruled upon by the tribunal, with significance lying in their connection to the merits of the case.

The tribunal's bifurcation of the proceedings was due to China's position paper on jurisdictional issues, despite the Philippines' preference for a combined decision.

China's principal objections on jurisdiction regarding sovereignty issues and boundary delimitation were rejected by the tribunal.

The tribunal's reserved judgment on seven issues is intertwined with the merits and does not imply a setback for the Philippines.

The Philippines' legal team provided satisfactory answers to the tribunal's questions, both orally and in writing.

Oil exploration at Recto Bank has been halted pending the arbitration case outcome.

A favorable tribunal ruling could grant the Philippines the right to proceed with oil exploration within its exclusive economic zone.

The US Navy's freedom of navigation operations reflect a stance on international law, not necessarily support for the Philippines' position.

China's inconsistent behavior with its blue-water navy suggests it may eventually adopt the US position on freedom of navigation.

The territorial dispute in the South China Sea cannot be resolved through compulsory arbitration as China refuses to participate.

A potential agreement among Asian countries to submit territorial disputes to arbitration could prevent future conflicts.

The Code of Conduct (COC) is a mechanism for regulating behavior at sea, not a dispute settlement mechanism.

China's control over the South China Sea could undermine the international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The Philippines expects international support in convincing China to honor an adverse ruling from the arbitration tribunal.

China's economic and political ambitions may require it to adhere to international norms and rulings for global cooperation.

The tribunal's decision is expected by mid-2016, with the Philippines' legal team prepared to defend their claims.

International support, including from the G7 and ASEAN, is crucial for the enforcement of the tribunal's ruling.

Transcripts

good morning Justice thank you for

granting this interview good morning a

sir how should the country uh view this

uh ruling by the tribunal specifically

on the jurisdiction

issue well on the jurisdiction issue the

ruling means that the uh proceedings

will continue uh on the merits uh

Philippines uh will present its evidence

uh on why uh the nine Dash lines are

void and why certain geologic features

are low tide uh or Islands uh entitled

only to 12 nautical miles and not to 200

nautical mile exclusive economic zone so

in other words uh the ruling is what we

wanted can we say Sir that it's a

victory on the part of the Philippines

oh yes uh it's an initial Victory

because it's just the uh preliminary

issue on

jurisdiction sir the seven submissions

that the Juris that the tribunal are

ruled it has jurisdiction um how why

what's their significance and some

analysts are saying that the seven other

submissions that the tribunal said uh

reserves consideration of of his

jurisdiction are the most important uh

uh Philippine submissions uh we have the

N Dash line the China's illegal

activities on the disputed Waters your

your take on that Justice well uh you

must remember that uh when we filed this

case we didn't want the uh tribunal to

bifurcate the proceeding in other words

we wanted the tribunal to decide the

jurisdiction together with the merits

but uh because China submitted the

position paper without uh participating

they submitted a position paper on the

jurisdictional issues the tribunal was

forced to bifurcate it to have a

separate hearing uh on the

jurisdictional issues because under

their rules of procedure they have to do

that if the issue of jurisdiction is

raised by a party and so uh uh we had to

go through this uh jurisdictional

hearing and uh seven of the issues uh

the court said they have jurisdiction

and on the seven they said we can

determine

jurisdiction only if we go through the

merits in other words the jurisdiction

issues are so intertwined with the

merits that they cannot decide right now

but you have to remember that it was our

uh position that all of this should be

cided together

uh I mean uh that was our original

position and it doesn't uh it's not no

big deal that uh the uh tribunal said

that on seven issues we reserved but

remember what what uh the principal

objection uh objections of China uh to

the proceedings were two uh that uh we

rais sovereignty issues and second that

uh the issues we rais uh involve C

boundary delimitation which China said

uh they will not be uh subjected to

compulsory arbitration they made a

reservation so these are the two uh

substantive uh objections on

jurisdiction and the court said the

tribunal

said

uh this uh case does not involve

sovereignty issues it does not involve C

boundary delimitations on all the 15

issues so their princip principal

objection on

jurisdiction the two principal

objections by China on the jurisdiction

were totally rejected by the court the

fact that uh the court said on seven

issues we cannot yet rule because uh it

involves factual issues they have to

know the facts and we have not yet

presented the facts doesn't mean

anything really we expected that because

that was our position from the very

start sir let's go back to the uh the

hearing at the he uh in in July you were

there sir you were part of the

Philippine delegation you you were you

observed the entire proceeding sir sir

how was how was the line of questioning

there and do you think we were able to

provide them satisfactory answers yes I

think we answered uh fully all their

questions orally and in

writing uh and uh I think uh that that's

why we have this kind of a ruling uh we

got everything we wanted uh that portion

there that issues uh on seven issues

they deferred doesn't really mean

anything because we expected

that sir we know that the oil

exploration at the recto bank uh has

been stopped uh because of the pending

arbitration case Sir with this ruling on

jurisdiction can we now say that the

government canot proceed with it or if

not uh when no not yet because the case

has not been uh finished yet we have to

wait for the outcome it's still pending

but sir once it uh the the tribunal has

ruled

uh let's say uh favoring our our

position then we can if the tribunal

rules that uh the Reed Bank belongs to

the exclusive economic zone of the

Philippines then of course uh uh we have

all the right to proceed because under

the law of the sea uh we have the

exclusive right to exploit our e MH sir

how about the recent move of the US uh a

US warship sailing within the uh 12

nautical miles of subbi reef sir how

does this affect our case and will this

put pressure on China to finally

participate in the arbitration case well

uh the the saale buy by the US Navy was

pursuant to their freedom of navigation

operations because the US has always

held that uh beyond the territorial sea

there's freedom of navigation for

commercial vessels as well as military

vessels without the the Sovereign of

these vessels asking for permission from

the coastal state that has always been

their position and that is the majority

view the overwhelming view

uh in uh all Juris Prudence all majority

of the overwhelming majority of

countries follow that position a small

group of countries not more than 20

including uh China uh followed the

position that beyond the territorial sea

but within the E uh warships will have

to ask permission for those warships to

sail but uh recently the China China

sent its Navy to the Mediterranean for

Naval drills in the Mediterranean Sea

together with Russia and in the

Mediterranean Sea there are no high seas

they're all overlapping exclusive

economic zones and China did not seek

permission from the coastal state so

they they are now inconsistent and China

also recently uh sailed through the with

their vessels with their warships

through the uh e and territorial sea of

the US in the Illusion in the uh

illusions of Alaska so uh without

permission from the US and the US just

allowed it because that is the position

of the US so uh China is saying that the

foreign vessels military vessels cannot

sail in our e without permission but

they're doing the opposite now so I

think finally they will agree to that

because what will you do with your blue

water Navy if you cannot sail uh through

the E of coastal countries I mean you

have to ask permission every time you

you uh sail through the EAS and they're

all over the world so I think eventually

China will adopt the position of the

US uh that uh that's what happened

during the Cold War when the US USSR

also uh did not allow uh American

warships to sail through their e but

when they had a Blue Water Navy they

change their position so I think uh

that's just temporary um uh that's just

temporary uh the uh the China China will

eventually adopt the same view as the us

because they have expensive warships and

those warships cannot sail through the

around the world because they have to

pass through many exclusive economic

zones so the US position is separate

from our position our position is that

within our e we have exclusive right to

exploit our natural resources the US

operations have nothing to do with that

yeah go good thing sir you pointed that

out because us is maintaining that it's

not taking any side particularly that of

the Philippines when when they s sent

that uh warship yeah it was not uh to

favor us it was not to uh to support our

position because they have a different

issue with China although there is some

convergence but that convergence will

disappeared the moment that China adopts

the US position because as far as the

exploitation of the natural resources

within our e the US is not saying

anything the US just saying we support

the Philippine approach to bring this to

a peaceful resolution through

arbitration that is what they're

saying so you've mentioned earlier about

sovereignty uh we know that the

arbitration case only uh settles the

maritime entitlements uh what should the

Philippines and other claimant parties

uh do uh in order for that sovereignty

question uh be resolved finally well uh

as you know the uh there are two issues

uh in the South China dispute there's

the territorial dispute and the maritime

dispute on the maritime dispute all the

parties have signed the United Nations

convention and the law of the sea and

there is a compulsory dispute settlement

mechanism that's why we can sue China

when it comes to the territorial dispute

there is no agreement among the

countries that uh the dispute on

territory will be submitted to

compulsory arbitration for every

territorial dispute the parties must

agree to submit it to compuls

arbitration uh before the icj or any

other arbitral body China refuses to

submit this to arbitration the

territorial dispute so we cannot force

China now uh the ideal thing is for

aayan to adopt uh an agreement that or

all territorial disputes should be

submitted to arbitration and invite

China to join that agreement so that the

territorial dispute in this practice

will be submitted to resolution by an

arbitral body it could be the icj uh

there is precedence to this of course

you have uh the pack of bot in Latin

America where all the countries in Latin

America have agreed that all Territorial

and Maritime disputes should be

submitted to compulsory arbitration

that's that's why you don't see Border

Wars anymore in Latin America because

before they signed the pack of Bot they

were always fighting each other because

of their border uh problems they they

claim that you're encroaching on our

territory so they would always be

Perpetual Border Wars because uh of

course their borders were arbitrarily

drawn by the colonial powers of the time

so they devised this mechanism the pack

of Bot now we have aayan integration now

economically we plan to be a union but

there's one missing uh component that

the territorial dispute should be

submitted to arbitration so that uh

countries within Assan don't go to war

so I think uh we have to move for this

and invite the other countries in Asia

to agree so that there will be no

territorial Wars anymore I mean uh we

submit to the rule rule of law so is it

is it correct to say that it is the COC

that we're pushing no no uh the COC is

different uh the code of conduct says

what it is it is a code for regulating

conduct conduct at Sea so that uh you

don't go to uh fight each other when you

bump into the sea uh it's a code of uh

good behavior in Sea so that you will

not go to war a shooting War it does not

set the dispute that is not a dispute

settlement mechanism that is a mechanism

to regulate conduct at se MH so uh the

dispute will still continue as to who

owns the maritime zones there is a

dispute settlement mechanism under

unclos we don't have to reinvent that

the code of conduct will not involve a

dispute settlement mechanism on Maritime

zones that's already in the uncl and we

don't want it to be changed MH the code

of conduct that we want China to sign is

a code on

Behavior at

Sea sir uh all this uh issue on the west

on the side South China Sea the West

Philippine Sea um do you think this is

just a battle or or a fight over

resources or this is uh China asserting

itself as a world superpower well

definitely China wants all the resources

in the South China Sea uh they want all

the fish all the oil and gas that's why

when we tried to bid out internationally

areas three and four in the Reed bank

they sent us note verbal and they said

we own areas three and four in the Reed

Bank we own in fact the entire Reed bank

that's their position so it's a fight

over resources over fishery because

China adopted Fisheries regulation that

you cannot fish in the South China Sea

without without our permission so it's

it's a fight over resources

uh the uh of course if you control the

resources in the South China Sea then uh

you influence a lot of countries around

the South China

Sea and is it correct s that if China

maintains uh control over the South

China see what's what's stopping them

from from moving to other uh bodies of

water to other territor well uh there

are uh there are speculations that after

securing the South China Sea they will

move beyond beyond the first island

chain in the Western Pacific uh we do

not know if uh they will do that but uh

that seems to be the direction but uh we

if they do that if they can control the

South China Sea economically and uh

militarily then there will be no law of

the sea anymore there will be no

unclose that's why we went to the

tribunal and as the tribunal to apply

the law of the sea in the South China

Sea so I I expect that the tribunal will

say China cannot claim the entire South

China Sea they will be limited to what

unclas allows them 200 nautical miles

from their from their

Coastline and uh I think that decision

will be supported by the

world so China uh we will be isolated

here MH so let's say we in the

arbitration case the bigger question is

how do we make China honor that uh

ruling well China already said that they

will ignore any adverse ruling of course

that's their initial position but once

we get that ruling that the nas lines

are void we will go to the International

Community to support us help us convince

China and uh of course uh China wants to

be seen as a responsible member of the

Civilized community of Nations they want

to show that they follow international

law law and uh China needs the world to

survive it needs to export to survive it

needs to import to survive and they

cannot just ignore World opinion they

want the world to join uh them in their

Maritime Silk Road in their one belt one

road over uh Asia and the EUR European

landmass but why will countries join

them when they when they encroach invade

on the maritime zones of coastal States

so they they have to follow

International Norms if they want people

the other states to cooperate with

them sir uh it's stated in the press

release of the arbitration court that we

expect a ruling by 2016 sir when exactly

do we see that well uh we expect it by

not later than mid 2016 because normally

uh it takes the tribunal four to 6

months from the time uh the case

submitted for decision and it will be

submitted for decision by end of this

month

sir lastly sir sir do you think uh our

legal team uh at the he will be ready

enough to defend our claims especially

now when we go to the merits of the case

yes uh they've been ready uh for some

time already and I think uh I I am

completely confident that they will do a

very uh very good job an outstanding job

in fact to in defending our

position just as any final words uh what

what should we anticipate what should we

expect during the uh merits uh part of

the case well uh I think uh what we

should be doing is to explain the world

to the world our position so that when

the decision comes they will understand

uh what it means and they will support

uh the decision of the tribunal MH but

sir sorry sir uh do you think the the

support of the G7 the uh the asan uh do

you think that's enough already or do we

need more pressure well the G7 came out

with a with a declaration uh that uh

they expect the parties China and the

Philippines to abide by the decision of

the

tribunal uh the EU came out with a

declaration that they support the uh

arbitration uh approach of the

Philippines as a peaceful settlement of

dispute in fact that is the uh statement

of all the countries because that's part

of the charter of the UN arbitration is

a peaceful settlement of dispute that's

expressly enshrined in the UN Charter

and uh once there is a ruling that

ruling becomes part of international law

and that has to be followed by all

civilized

Nations