We are not into physical war

In transnational relations, disputes are likely to arise between states as they do between individuals. A dispute according to Senator Jovito Salonga, is a disagreement on a point of law or fact. For the purpose of this article today, we refer to the West Philippine Sea as the source of dispute between the Philippines and China. This dispute arose because of a so-called nine dash line which is a map arbitrarily drawn by China to cover a wide expanse of the West Philippine Sea (WPS). This expansive cartographic claim is coupled with the physical act of China occupying features and establishing military facilities within portions of the Philippine maritime zones.

To be sure, a 1974 Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations defined “Aggression (as) the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity xx of another State.” Conversely, the Charter of the United Nations obligates member states to settle their international disputes by peaceful means. Whenever differences between nations arise, they are duty-bound to adjust their disputes amicably.

This is precisely what our country, the Philippines, did in so far as the WPS is concerned. We did not fire cannons. We only delivered incontrovertible arguments defining our cause. Our position was legal and clear that China had no option but refuse to participate in the litigation.

Authorities on International Law acknowledge several ways of settling disputes without resort to war. These are negotiations, good offices, mediation, conciliation and arbitration. By negotiation, we mean direct face-to-face discussions between the disputing states without the involvement of a third state. The term “Good Offices” refers to a situation where neutral third party (such as a state or the UN Secretary-General) steps in simply to encourage or bring the disputing parties together to start direct talks, without actively participating in the negotiations. There is mediation when a neutral third party actively participates in the discussions, proposes terms of settlement, and helps guide the parties toward a compromise. It must be understood though that the mediator's proposals are non-binding. International Law scholars consider “Conciliation” as a formal process whereby some kind of a commission investigates the dispute and submits formal, even if initially non-binding recommendations or terms of settlement for the parties to consider.

Finally, there is an adjudicative process of settling international disputes. This is called Arbitration. Our country, during the administration of President Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Cojuangco Aquino IV, resorted to this legal methodology. We raised to the Permanent International Court of Arbitration the matter of the WPS. In the early days of the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte, the arbitral tribunal ruled that the so-called nine dash line had no legal basis and that the WPS is within our Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Philippines asserted our territorial sovereign rights over the WPS in a pacific settlement of international dispute recognized by international law. We did not go to war. Resorting to violence as a means of resolving dispute has long been considered primitive. That was why I was shocked to hear Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte-Carpio being quoted as saying “Gaano ba kalaki ang baril ko? Gaano ba ka laki ang baril ng kalaban?” It alluded to war having been declared. There is none and nothing had ever been so declared. That attributed statement of the second highest official of the land was both reckless and irresponsible. Not only had she revealed her paucity of knowledge of Philippine international affairs, she exposed our country to an unacceptable risk of being needlessly plunged into conflict.