COMMENTARY: 5 key facts on Benham RisePublished January 31, 2018 7:36am
By RICHARD JAVAD HEYDARIAN
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/opinion/content/641614/5-key-facts-on-benham-rise/story/?utm_source=GMANews&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=opinion< Edited >
But, what is really at stake in the Benham Rise? What is being fought over? Do we have any legitimate claim there? What should we do? The following are three key issues that we should keep in mind.
I. The Benham Rise is a volcanic ridge, which is part of our extended continental shelf in the Philippine Sea. Similar to an EEZ, we do have “sovereign rights” in the area -- rather than “sovereignty”, since we’re not talking about a full-fledged island or land formation, to which we can have title to claim – based on Article 77 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which makes it clear that a coastal state has sovereign rights over its continental shelf for the purpose of "exploring it and exploiting its natural resources."
Crucially, those rights are “exclusive”, meaning other states can’t conduct any exploration and exploitation activities in Benham Rise without our express permission. As the UNCLOS puts it quite unambiguously, "The rights…are exclusive in the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake these activities without the express consent of the coastal State."
II. We should keep in mind that per our constitution, Benham Rise --- as part of our continental shelf -- is part of our national territory. Based on international law, however, we don’t have full sovereignty over it. Yet, the distinction between “sovereign rights” and “sovereignty” is not a major categorical difference, but instead more of various manifestations of exclusive rights of a coastal state along a broad spectrum of jurisdictional regime. Yes, we can’t claim the whole water enveloped by the ridge in the area as our “territory” per se, as China does in adjacent waters, but we have full and exclusive sovereign rights -- based on a 2012 United Nations ruling, which is, in accordance to the Art. 76(
of the UNCLOS, “final” and “binding” -- over resources in the area.
III. China is certainly correct to emphasize its right to freedom of navigation (FON) and overflight (FOO) in the area per UNCLOS, but that’s very rich coming from a country that rejects UNCLOS-based arbitration ruling as a “piece of trash paper” and claims the whole South China Sea as its own blue national soil, not to mention impedes FON and FOO through massive reclamation and militarization in Spratlys and Paracels, with Scarborough Shoal hanging in the balance.
IV. There are good reasons to be concerned about China’s intentions in the Benham Rise. Under the so-called “Island Chain Strategy,” Beijing views much of the Philippine Sea and Western Pacific as falling under its “second island chain”, a maritime buffer zone that it aims to dominate within the coming decade. In China’s view, domination of that area is key to keeping America’s naval prowess and footprint in adjacent waters in check.
V. Finally, this is precisely why it behooves the Duterte administration to be fully transparent in terms of its supposed MSR with China. The MSR is reportedly between Institute of Oceanology of Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOCAS) and the University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute (UP MSI). And it will focus on studying climate-driving ocean currents. This looks all fine and dandy, and we should indeed peruse mutually beneficial agreement with all countries, including China. But as the Russian proverb goes, “Trust, but Verify”.
