War is not an option

A reading into the history of international law tells us it came to being only in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This was when the modern State system emerged. From the rudimentary formulation of some rules in its infancy, changes of great importance have shaped present international law.

The basic objective of Public International Law is the outlawry of war. According to Dr. Jovito Salonga, a vital function of international law is to eliminate the element of unlawful force in the solution of human conflicts. Dr D.J. Harris of the University of Nottingham adds: “Resort to war has been made illegal and a system of collective enforcement of peace and security has been initiated through the United Nations in place of self-help.” I recalled this in the light of what President Rodrigo Duterte has been saying recently.

What have we lately perceived from Duterte? When placed in a defensive stance by some critical observers on the issue of the Gem-Ver 1, President Duterte mentioned that it was just a minor maritime incident. However he juxtaposed his words with such terms as China being our friendly state, he went to the extreme in saying our country cannot declare war against China. In his exposition, he spoke of the scary truth that in that event, we would be crushed by superior Chinese forces.

I imagine he talked about the horrors of being pulverized by China in case of war to persuade us to be less confrontational. Demanding that China respects the Exclusive Economic Zone, including the area where Gem-Ver 1 was rammed, is, if we were to believe Duterte, is more confrontational than friendly. The demand that our sovereign rights be respected can lead to hostilities and Duterte wants us to think that it will be a losing proposition for us. We cannot win that war. Fear factor.

The scare tactic employed by Duterte is actually his misreading of international law. It’s wrong appreciation of the arbitral ruling for him to say that enforcing the rights we gained from the international tribunal is going to trigger war. Based upon the quantum developments in the world’s legal system, we feel Duterte’s posturing is, with all due respect, a flawed perception. War, isn’t an option. In fact, we should take advantage of this decision. Bringing it to world attention is in line with the public international law. That’s our best strategy.

In our opening line, we deferred to the outlawry of war as the basic objective of international law. We don’t have to declare war. There is a constitutional bar against it. We just have to acknowledge that in law, there are more effective ways of settling disputes among states. In so far as our claim of sovereign rights over the West Philippine Sea as it conflicts with China’s nine-dash line, the case we filed Permanent Arbitration Court was the right step. Let other states know of our country’s predicament. Vigilantibus non dormientibus equitas subvenit. We have a ruling in our favor, but China, a bully superpower, doesn’t respect it. In international law, small states can band together, not in warfare, but in putting international pressure upon states that tend to disregard transnational orders. But we need to inform these other small countries of our rights being violated by our chink-eyed neighbors before they can act together. This, I submit, must be our legal tract.