FACTS: (NOTE: please research further on other facts because this is just the summary.

The 2019 Reed Bank incident occurred when F/B Gem-Ver, a Philippine fishing boat anchored in Reed Bank in
the South China Sea, sank after it was rammed by a Chinese vessel, Yuemaobinyu 42212, during the early
morning hours of 9 June 2019. The stricken vessel's crew were later rescued by a Vietnamese fishing vessel.
An independent investigation by Philippine authorities later determined that the Chinese vessel involved in
the incident failed to undertake measures to avoid colliding with the F/B Gem-Ver and abandoned the
stricken boat's crew, in violation of maritime laws.

Recto Bank is an underwater reef formation that is said to contain huge reserves of oil and
natural gas in the West Philippine Sea.

While coveted by China, Recto Bank belongs to the Philippines.

A 2016 ruling of an international tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, said Recto Bank is part of
the Philippines' exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The EEZ is the area 200 nautical miles from a
coastal state's baselines, within which the coastal state has the exclusive rights to fish and
exploit resources.

Recto Bank is said to contain most of the oil and natural gas in the South China Sea, part of
which the Philippines calls the West Philippine Sea.

OPPONENTS POSSIBLE ARGUMENT:

A. Article 56 of UNCLOS, which provides that “In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the
natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of
the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and
exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds, (b)
the coastal state has jurisdiction with regard to the protect and preservation of the marine
environment.

B. UNCOS provision on Exclusive Economic Zone

But you can rebut these arguments by sticking to our argument that judicial settlement is not the
best method of resolving the issue.
FIRST ARGUMENT – WE DON’T HAVE TO FILE A DIPLOMATIC COMPLAINT IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF SETTLING INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES.

MAIN LEGAL BASES:

A. Article 33 of UN Charter

“The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of
international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other
peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by
such means.”

B. Friendly Relations Declaration (2nd Par) & Manila Declaration (para. 5 of sect. I)

It is for the parties to agree on such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and
the nature of their dispute.

C. UNCLOS, PART XV – Settlement of Disputes

Article 279 - Obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means

“States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of
this Convention by peaceful means in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the
United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph
1, of the Charter.”

Article 280 - Settlement of disputes by any peaceful means chosen by the parties

“Nothing in this Part impairs the right of any States Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute
between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by any peaceful
means of their own choice.”

Article 281 Procedure where no settlement has been reached by the parties

“If the States Parties which are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of
this Convention have agreed to seek settlement of the dispute by a peaceful means of their own
choice, the procedures provided for in this Part apply only where no settlement has been reached
by recourse to such means and the agreement between the parties does not exclude any further
procedure.”
 a. There is no need to file a diplomatic complaint immediately because there are other ways
of settling international disputes.

NOTE: The issue of the debate is NOT on the liability of Chinese vessels because of the collision, but
whether or not the Philippines should file a diplomatic complaint. We will argue that a diplomatic
complaint is not the best solution to the problem, because there are other means of settling disputes.

As the UN Charter does not prescribe in which way or by what means disputes need to be resolved,
the parties are free to choose their dispute settlement mechanism. In the framework of international
peace and security Article 33 of the UN Charter provides a number of alternatives to choose from in
resolving disputes, e.g., negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and judicial
settlement. Notwithstanding the free choice of means, the Manila Declaration underlines the legal
obligation of parties to find a peaceful solution to their dispute and refrain from action that might
aggravate the situation. The methods and procedures of dispute settlement for states also largely
apply to non-state actors. These various forms of peaceful dispute settlement are the subject of this
general research guide.

Under the Friendly Relations Declaration (second paragraph of the relevant section) and the Manila
Declaration (para. 5 of sect. I), it is for the parties to agree on such peaceful means as may be
appropriate to the circumstances and the nature of their dispute.

b. Negotiation is a more flexible and effective means of settling disputes.

Emphasizing on the mode of Negotiation, the Permanent Court of International Justice asserts that,
unlike other means of settlement, negotiation leads to "the direct and friendly settlement of ...
disputes between parties". Furthermore, negotiations are usually a prerequisite to resort to other
means of peaceful settlement of disputes. This was recognized as far as arbitral or judicial
proceedings were concerned by the Permanent Court in the following words: "Before a dispute can
be made the subject of an action at law, its subject matter should have been clearly defined by
diplomatic negotiations."

It should be noted that the term "diplomacy" is used in some treaties, such as the 1949 Revised
General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, as a synonym of "negotiations", as is
also the phrase "through the usual diplomatic channels" as it appears, for instance, in the 1948
Charter of the Organization of American States.

The Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes highlights flexibility as
one of the characteristics of direct negotiations as a means of peaceful settlement of disputes (sect.
I, para. 10). Negotiation is a flexible means of peaceful settlement of disputes in several respects. It
can be applied to all kinds of disputes, whether political, legal or technical. Because, unlike the other
means listed in Article 33 of the Charter, it involves only the States parties to the dispute, those States
can monitor all the phases of the process from its initiation to its conclusion and conduct it in the way
they deem most appropriate.

Another characteristic of negotiation highlighted by the Manila Declaration is effectiveness (sect. I,

para. 10). Suffice it to say in this connection that in the reality of international life, negotiation, as
one of the means of peaceful settlement of disputes, is most often resorted to by States for solving
contentious issues and that, while it is not always successful, it does solve the majority of disputes.

Once the negotiations are successful, they normally lead to the issuance by the parties of an
instrument reflecting the terms of the agreement arrived at. This document may be a comprehensive
agreement. It may be a joint statement or communiqu6. A memorandum or declaration defining
broad points of agreement may precede the issuance of a more detailed agreement.

Usually, the dispute settlement clauses of many multilateral treaties provide that disputes which
cannot be settled by negotiation shall be submitted to another peaceful settlement procedure.
 c. Other modes of settlement of disputes should be resorted to first, prior to judicial
settlement.

The UNCLOS, among other Conventions, visualize the following procedure in an optional protocol:

Any dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of any of the conventions may be
brought before ICJ by unilateral request. However, the parties to the dispute may agree
before bringing the dispute to ICJ, to resort to arbitration or to adopt a conciliation
procedure. In the latter case, the Conciliation commission shall make its recommendations
after its appointment. If they are not accepted by the parties to the dispute within two
months, either party may bring the dispute before ICJ.

Article 283 of UNCLOS provides for the Obligation to exchange views:

“When a dispute arises between States Parties concerning the interpretation or application
of this Convention, the parties to the dispute shall proceed expeditiously to an exchange of
views regarding its settlement by negotiation or other peaceful means.“

Article 284 Conciliation

A State Party which is a party to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of

this Convention may invite the other party or parties to submit the dispute to conciliation.

SECOND ARGUMENT – THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE HAVE NOT COMPLETELY CLARIFIED AND
ESTABLISHED

The facts are incomplete because of the following:

1. The investigation was conducted only by an the Philippine government.

2. A further investigation IS STILL PENDING. Therefore, we do not have yet the full facts of the
case. Why should we file a complaint when we don’t have the complete set of facts yet?

The diplomatic complaint more emphasizes in soothing the Filipino public opinion than the merits
of their case. Which may lay to some legal embarrassment. It is difficult to file a protest without
having resorted to an exhaustive, comprehensive, factual, thorough, and complete study and
investigation on the case.

a. Inquiry, and the benefits of clarifying the facts prior to settlement of disputes.

In an international dispute involving in particular a difference of opinion on points of fact, the States
concerned may agree to initiate an inquiry to investigate a disputed issue of fact, as well as other
aspects of the dispute, to determine any violations of relevant treaties or other international
commitments alleged by the parties and to suggest appropriate remedies and adjustments. Inquiry
may also be resorted to when parties to a dispute agree on some other means of settlement
(arbitration, conciliation, regional arrangements, etc.) and there arises a need for collecting all
necessary information in order to ascertain or elucidate the facts giving rise to the dispute.

The function of inquiry-investigation or elucidation of a disputed issue of fact-was comprehensively

dealt with in the 1899 and 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes. Article 9 of the 1907 Convention reads as follows: "In disputes of an international nature
involving neither honour nor essential interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of
fact, the Contracting Powers deem it expedient and desirable that the parties who have not been
able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy should, as far as circumstances allow, institute
an international commission of inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these disputes by elucidating the
facts by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation."
Inquiry as a means of settlement of disputes has been provided for in a number of bilateral and
multilateral treaties, including the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Charter of the United
Nations and the constituent instruments of certain specialized agencies and other international
organizations within the United Nations system, and in various instruments by the regional bodies.

Inquiry, as an impartial third-party procedure for fact-finding and investigation, may indeed
contribute to a reduction of tension and the prevention of an international dispute, as distinct from
facilitating the settlement of such a dispute. The possibility of fact-finding (inquiry) contributing to
the prevention of an international dispute was recognized, for example, by the General Assembly in
its resolution 1967 (XVIII) of 16 December 1963 on the "Question of methods of fact-finding." In the
resolution, the Assembly stated its belief "that an important contribution to the peaceful settlement
of disputes and to the prevention of such disputes could be made by providing for impartial fact-
finding within the framework of international organizations and in bilateral and multinational
conventions".