It is a principle of international law that “the only form in which a cession can be effected is an agreement normally in the form of a treaty between the ceding and the acquiring state,” as stated in Oppenheim’s International Law.
Japan, shortly after securing Taiwan by way of the Shimonoseki Treaty in 1895, concluded a declaration with the Kingdom of Spain, in which “the parallel passing through the middle of the navigable Channel of Bachi is taken as the dividing line between Japanese and Spanish possessions in the western Pacific Ocean.”
In the peace talks after the Spain-US war, the US intended to assert that the northernmost point of the Philippines should be at 21.5o north latitude; however, Spain said that it could not cede to the US anything that did not belong to Spain.
Therefore, in the Treaty of Peace between the US and Spain signed in Paris in 1898, the line in the declaration of 1895 was defined as 20o north latitude by the US and Spain.
Two years later, on Nov. 7, 1900, the US concluded a sole article treaty, to make clear the geographical extent of the Philippine archipelagoes.
In the 1898 peace treaty, the two parties explicitly identified Cagayan Sulu Island, which is located at 6o north latitude, and the Sibutu Islands, at 4.83o north latitude, as part of the archipelagoes as a whole. They did not mention the Batan Islands, which are at 20.42o north latitude, and thus not a part of the Philippines as defined by the treaty.
In addition, the US had already sent a gunboat, the USS Princeton, to occupy the Batan Islands on Jan. 10, 1900, which also proves that the Batan Islands had nothing to do with the peace treaty. The US did not receive any mandate in 1895, 1898 or 1900 to rule the Batan Islands.
The US then recognized the independence of the Republic of the Philippines in the Treaty of Manila of 1946 and transferred its power where applicable. Article VII stipulated that “the Republic of the Philippines agrees to assume all continuing obligations assumed by the United States of America under the Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and Spain concluded at Paris on the 10th day of December, 1898, by which the Philippine Islands were ceded to the United States of America, and under the Treaty between the United States of America and Spain concluded at Washington on the 7th day of November, 1900.”
Only the treaties of 1898 and 1900, which do not refer to the Batan Islands at all, were mentioned.
In light of the content of the four treaties, it is clear that the Philippines holds no sovereignty over the Batan Islands and accordingly has no rights to its Exclusive Economic Zone.
In other words, Taipei, which is involved in a criminal argument and fisheries dispute with Manila, need not leave the Batan Islands blank out of courtesy for the so-called “temporary enforcement line” of 20o north latitude. Also, there is no issue about abolishing the enforcement line or not.
The question of who holds sovereignty over the Batan Islands should be decided by Taiwan, Japan and the US. The Batan question has nothing to do with the Philippines or China.
So, just dispatch the nation’s coast guard vessels there.
HoonTing is a commentator in Taipei.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS