Mô tả
This paper discusses the juridical debate between the two positions, labeled for this purposes as, on one hand, the nationalist position vis-à-vis the modernist position. The nationalist position would adhere to the expansive claim over maritime zones created by the 1898 Treaty of Peace whereby Spain, the erstwhile colonizing power, ceded the Philippine archipelago to the United States. Themodernist position would adhere to the calibrated but widely accepted maritime zones as defined in the Law of the Sea Convention. Both positions are based on treaties binding on the Philippines, the first by succession, the second by ratification.
It explores the persistence of the nationalist position and why the modernist argument has not overwhelmed it despite the recent Baselines Law, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s recent decision. The Court could have categorically stated that with the passing of the new Baselines Law, the Philippines had officially cast off the 1898 treaty lines which have been obsolesced by the radically new approach using baselines. In other words, far from being the triumph of the modernist view, the Magallona v. Executive Secretary ruling actually demonstrates the rhetorical and symbolic power of the nationalist position.
---Copy.png&w=200)
