ANGLO NORWEGIAN FISHERIES CASE (SUMMARY ON CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW)

Case: Anglo Norwegian Fisheries Case (UK vs Norway)

The Court was asked to decide, inter-alia, the validity, under international law, of the methods used to delimit Norway’s
territorial sea/ fisheries zone. We would not discuss the technical aspects of the judgment. The judgment contained
declarations on customary international law. However, the value of the jurisprudence was diminished because these
declarations lacked in-depth discussion.

Background to the case

The United Kingdom requested the court to decide if Norway had used a legally acceptable method in drawing the
baseline from which it measured its territorial sea. The United Kingdom argued that customary international law did not
allow the length of a baseline drawn across abay to be longer than ten miles. Norway argued that its delimitation method
was consistent with general principles of international law.

Formation of customary law

The court consistently referred to positive (1) state practice and (2) lack of objections of other states on that practice as a
confirmation of an existing rule of customary international law (see p. 17 and 18). There was no mention of opinio juris in
this early judgment.

In the following passage, the court considered that expressed state dissent regarding a particular practice was detrimental
to the existence of an alleged general rule. It did not elaborate whether these states adopted a contrary practice because it
was claiming an exception to the rule (see the Nicaragua jurisprudence) or because it believed that the said rule did not
possess the character of customary law.

“In these circumstances the Court deems it necessary to point out that although the ten-mile rule has been adopted by
certain States both in their national law and in their treaties and conventions, and although certain arbitral decisions have
applied it as between these States, other States have adopted a different limit. Consequently, the ten-mile rule has not
acquired the authority of a general rule of international law.”

Persistent objector rule

The court in its judgment held that even if a customary law rule existed on the ten-mile rule,“…the ten-mile rule would
appear to be inapplicable as against Norway inasmuch as she has always opposed any attempt to apply it to the Norwegian
coast.” In this case, the court appears to support the idea that an existing customary law rule would not apply to a state if it
objected to any outside attempts to apply the rule to itself, at the initial stages and in a consistent manner, and if other
states did not object to her resistance. In this manner, the Anglo Norwegian fisheries case joined the asylum case (Peru vs
Colombia) in articulating what we now call the persistent objector rule.

Initial objection

In the present case, the court pointed out that the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, in 1870, stated that, “in spite of
the adoption in some treaties of the quite arbitrary distance of 10 sea miles, this distance would not appear to me to have
acquired the force of international law. Still less would it appear to have any foundation in reality…”

The court held that “Language of this kind can only be construed as the considered expression of a legal conception
regarded by the Norwegian Government as compatible with international law”. The court held that Norway had refused
to accept the rule as regards to it by 1870.

Sustained objection

The court also went on to hold that Norway followed the principles of delimitation that it considers a part of its system in
a consistent and uninterrupted manner from 1869 until the time of the dispute. In establishing consistent practice, the court
held that “…too much importance need not be attached to the few uncertainties or contradictions, real or apparent, which
the United Kingdom Government claims to have discovered in Norwegian practice.”

No objection

After the court held that the 10-mile rule did not form a part of the general law and, in any event, could not bind Norway
because of its objections, the court inquired whether the Norwegian system of delimitation, itself, was contrary to
international law. To do so, the court referred to state practice once more.

“The general toleration of foreign States with regard to the Norwegian practice is an unchallenged fact. For a period of
more than sixty years the United Kingdom Government itself in no way contested it… The Court notes that in respect of a
situation which could only be strengthened with the passage of time, the United Kingdom Government refrained from
formulating reservations.”

Contrary practice

In this case, Norway adopted a contrary practice – a practice that was the subject of litigation.

However, interestingly, Norway was clear that it was not claiming an exception to the rule (i.e. that its practice was not
contrary to international law) but rather it claimed that its practice was in conformity with international law (see page 21).

“In its (Norway’s) view, these rules of international law take into account the diversity of facts and, therefore, concede
that the drawing of base-lines must be adapted to the special conditions obtaining in different regions. In its view, the
system of delimitation applied in 1935, a system characterized by the use of straight lines, does not therefore infringe the
general law; it is an adaptation rendered necessary by local conditions. ”

Conclusion

The court held that the fact that this consistent and sufficiently long practice took place without any objection to the
practice from other states (until the time of dispute) indicated that states did not consider the Norwegian system to be
“contrary to international law”.

“The notoriety of the facts, the general toleration of the international community, Great Britain’s position in the North
Sea, her own interest in the question, and her prolonged abstention would in any case warrant Norway’s enforcement of
her system against the United Kingdom. The Court is thus led to conclude that the method of straight lines, established in
the Norwegian system, was imposed by the peculiar geography of the Norwegian coast; that even before the dispute arose,
this method had been consolidated by a consistent and sufficiently long practice, in the face of which the attitude of
governments bears witness to the fact that they did not consider it to be contrary to international law.”

Relationship between international and national law

The court alluded to the relationship between national and international law in delimitation of maritime boundaries. In
delimitation cases, states “must be allowed the latitude necessary in order to be able to adapt its delimitation to practical
needs and local requirements…” The court would also consider “…certain economic interests peculiar to a region, the
reality and importance of which are clearly evidenced by a long usage.” However, while the act of delimitation can be
undertaken by the State, its legal validity depends on international law.

“The delimitation of sea areas has always an international aspect; it cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the
coastal State as expressed in its municipal law. Although it is true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act,
because only the coastal State is competent to undertake it, the validity of the delimitation with regard to other States
depends upon international law. (p. 20)”
 The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case
Since 1911 British trawlers had been seized and condemned for violating measures taken by the Norwegian government
specifying the limits within which fishing was prohibited to foreigners. In 1935, a decree was adopted establishing the
lines of delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone.
On 24th September 1949 the government of the United Kingdom filed the registry of the international court of justice an
application instituting proceedings against Norway. The subject of the proceeding was the validity, under international
law, of the lines of delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone as set forth in a Decree of 12th July 1935.
The application referred to the declaration by which the united Kingdom and Norway had accepted the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in accordance with article 36 (2) of its statute.
The parties involved in this case were Norway and the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The
implementation of the Royal Norwegian Decree of the 1935 was met with resistance from the United Kingdom. The
decree covers the drawing of straight lines, called “baselines” 4 miles deep into the sea. This 4 miles area is reserved
fishing exclusive for Norwegian nationals. Under article 36(2) both UK and Norway were willing to accept the
jurisdiction of the ICJ on this case and with no appeal. The issues that constitute the case were submitted to the court and
the arguments presented by both countries. The issues claims the court to: declare the principles of international law
applicable in defining the baselines by reference to which Norwegian government was entitled to delimit a fisheries zone
and exclusively reserved to its nationals; and to define the said “base lines” in the light of the arguments of the parties in
order to avoid further legal difference; and secondly to award damages to the government of the United Kingdom in
respect of all interferences by the Norwegian authorities with British fishing vessels outside the fisheries zone, which in
accordance with ICJ's decision, the Norwegian government may be entitled to reserve for its nationals.
The United Kingdom argued that;
 Norway could only draw straight lines across bays
 The length of lines drawn on the formations of the Skaergaard fjord must not exceed 10 nautical miles( the 10
Mile rule)
 That certain lines did not follow the general direction of the coast or did not follow it sufficiently , or they did not
respect certain connection of sea and land separating them
 That the Norwegian system of delimitation was unknown to the British and lack the notoriety to provide the basis
of historic title enforcement upon opposable to by the United Kingdom
The Kingdom of Norway argued;
 That the base lines had to be drawn in such a way as to respect the general direction of the coast and in a
reasonable manner.
The case was submitted to the International Court of Justice by the government of the United Kingdom. The government
of United Kingdom wants the ICJ to declare the validity of the base lines under international law and receive
compensation for damages caused by Norwegian authorities as to the seizures of British Fishing vessels.
The judgment of the court first examines the applicability of the principles put forward by the government of the UK, then
the Norwegian system, and finally the conformity of that system with international law. The first principle put forward by
the UK is that the baselines must be low water mark, this indeed is the criterion generally adopted by most states and but
differ as to its application. (Johnson 154). The court considered the methods of drawing the lines but, the court rejected
the “trace Parallele” which consists of drawing the outer limits of the belt following the coast and all its sinuosity. The
court also rejected the “courbe tangent” (arcs of a circle) and it is not obligatory under international law to use these
methods of drawing the lines. The court also paid particular attention to the geographical aspect of the case. The
geographical realities and historic control of the Norwegian coast inevitably contributed to the final decision by the ICJ.
The coast of Norway is too indented and is an exception under international law from the 3 miles territorial waters rule.
The fjords, Sunds along the coastline which have the characteristic of a bay or legal straits should be considered
Norwegian for historical reasons that the territorial sea should be measured from the line of low water mark. So it was
agreed on the outset of both parties and the court that Norway had the right to claim a 4 mile belt of territorial sea. The
court concluded that it was the outer line of the Skaergaard that must be taken into account in admitting the belt of the
Norwegian territorial waters. (Johnson 154- 158). “There is one consideration not to be overlooked, the scope of which
extends beyond geographical factors. That of certain economic interests peculiar to a region, the reality and importance of
which are clearly evidenced by a long usage” (Johnson 160)
The law relied upon mainly international Law of the sea; how far a state can modify its territorial waters and its control
over it, exclusively reserving fishing for its nationals. In this case, rules that are practiced for instance how long a baseline
should be. Only a 10 mile long straight line is allowed and this has been the practice by most states however it is different
in the case of Norway because of Norway's geographic indentation, islands and islets.
The international customary law has been a law of reference in the court arguments. Judge Read from Canada asserts that
Customary international law does not recognize the rule according to which belts of territorial waters of coastal states is to
be measured. More so public international law has been relied upon in this case. It regulates relation between states; the
United Kingdom and Norway.

Maritime Law

Coastline Rule
The judgment was rendered in favor of Norway on the 18th December 1951. By 10 votes to 2 the court held that the
method employed in the delimitation of the fisheries zone by the Royal Norwegian decree of the 12th July 1935 is not
contrary to international law. By 8 votes to 4 votes the court also held that the base lines fixed by this decree in
application are not contrary to international law. However there are separate opinions and dissenting opinions from the
judges in the court.
Judge Hackworth declared that he concurred with the operative part of the judgment because he considered that the
Norwegian government had proved the existence of historic title of the disputed areas of water.
Judge Alvarez from Chile relied on the evolving principles of the law of nations applicable to the law of the sea.
 States have the right to modify the extent of the of their territorial sea
 Any state directly concerned may object to another state's decision as to the extent of its territorial sea
 International status of bays and straits must be determined by the coastal state directly concerned with due regard
to the general interest and
 Historic rights and concept of prescription in international law.
Judge Hsu Mo from china opinions diverge from the court's with regards to conformity with principles of international
law to the straight lines drawn by the Decree of 1935. He allowed possibility in certain circumstances, for instance, belt
measured at low tide, Norway's geographic and historic conditions. But drawing the straight lines as of the 1935 degree is
a moving away from the practice of the general rule. (Johnson 171)
The dissenting opinions from judge McNair rested upon few rules of law of international waters. Though there are
exceptions, in case of bays, the normal procedure to calculate territorial waters in from the land, a line which follows the
coastline. Judge McNair rejected the argument upon which Norway based its decree including:
 Protecting Norway's economic and other social interests
 The UK should not be precluded from objecting the Norwegian system embodied in the Decree because previous
acquiescence in the system and
 An historic title allowing the state to acquire waters that would otherwise have the status of deep sea. Judge
McNair concluded that the 1935 decree is not compatible with international law.(Johnson173)
Furthermore, Judge Read from Canada was unable to concur with parts of the judgment. Read rejected justification by
Norway for enlarging her maritime domain and seizing and condemning foreign ships (Johnson 173);
 Sovereignty of the coastal state is not the basis for Norway to claim 4 mile belt from straight base lines
 Customary international law does not recognize the rule according to which belts of territorial waters of coastal
states is to be measured.
 Norwegian system cannot be compatible with international law.
 ICJ’S DECISION ON CHILEAN-PERUVIAN MARITIME DISPUTE

On Monday 27th January, the six year maritime border dispute between Chile and Peru was settled by the International
Court of Justice in The Hague, with the ruling seen as in favour of Peru. With 10 votes in favour and 6 against, the court
ruled that the maritime border between Chile and Peru follows parallel up to 80 nautical miles and an equidistant line out
to 200 miles.

The decision which cannot be appealed, will affect industrial fishing the most with the new boundary, set 80 miles off the
coast of Peruvian city Arica, slicing about 8,000 square miles of ocean from Chile’s “exclusive economic zone.” Chile’s
President Sebastian Pinera described the decision as "a lamentable loss" for his nation, with hundreds of Arica fisherman
demonstrating throughout the day. Pinera added that "it is necessary and important to note that the judgment, first
acknowledges and cautions in its full integrity the 12-mile territorial sea, sovereign of Chile, upon which it keeps full and
absolute right," he said.

But the swathe was smaller than Peru had wanted. It had asked for 38,000 sq km (23,600 sq miles) but had to settle for
around 21,000 sq km. Chile gets to keep the rest, including the lucrative fishing grounds closest to its coastline. By
changing the border, the court also gave Peru an additional 28,000 sq km of sea that until now was in international waters.
Additionally, the ICJ said the maritime border should start from the same point on the coastline as it does now. Peru had
wanted it moved south, further into Chilean territory.

After learning about the decision, the Peruvian agent, Allan Wagner, thanked on behalf of the Peruvian delegation the
backing received from President of Peru, Ollanta Humala, and former presidents Alan Garcia and Alejandro Toledo.

For his part, Humala declared that after six years of litigation, it is "gratifying" that the Court has recognized the validity
of the Peruvian position, which is there was no delineation of maritime boundary with Chile up to mile 200. "Accordingly,
it has proceeded to establish a limit that recognizes a space that can be preliminarily calculated at about 50,000 square

kilometres of Peru’s sovereign rights," he added.

According to information published by Diario Financiero, the main fishery resources Chile captures in the disputed area,
anchovy, among others, would not be significantly affected because 95% of the fishery develops up to mile 50. Likewise,
fisheries in Peruvian hands would be migratory, among which are the Patagonian toothfish, leatherjack and swordfish.

The dispute was a legacy of the War of the Pacific, which lasted from 1879 to 1883. Chile won, conquering Peruvian
territory and depriving Bolivia of a coastline. A treaty between Peru and Chile in 1929 granted Chile control of Arica, and
the countries later fixed a land boundary. The maritime boundary, however, was never fully defined.

In 2008, Peru, under President Alan García, took Chile to the World Court. Peru’s proposal would have allowed it to
project a 200-mile maritime zone across waters that Chile considered high seas, giving Peru an additional 15,000 square
miles. Chile argued that the border had been clearly established by fishing treaties signed by Chile, Peru and Ecuador in
1952 and 1954; by subsequent agreements; and by customary practice and the unilateral actions of Peru.
The court settled on a compromise, recognizing that while the treaties had not expressly established the maritime
boundary, the 1954 document had “cemented” a “tacit agreement.” Through fishing activities, enforcement and other
practices based on those treaties and subsequent agreements, the court said, both countries had acknowledged a maritime
border running 80 miles from the coast along a line of latitude.

Still, Chilean officials said they were confused by the court’s reasoning in setting the boundary at 80 miles off
Arica. Incoming Chilean President, Michelle Bachelet, noted that "This decision of the Court, which we do not share and
regret, affects part of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), where Chile has economic rights." "We will take all necessary
actions and measures to adequately safeguard and protect the legitimate rights and interests of our country," she said.
 DISPUTE CONCERNING DELIMITATION OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN BANGLADESH
AND MYANMAR IN THE BAY OF BENGAL

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg (a Tribunal composed of 21 judges and established under
the UN Law of the Sea Convention) gave judgment on 14 March 2012 in a maritime boundary dispute between the
Republic of Bangladesh and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Sir Michael Wood was one of Myanmar's Counsel.
The judgment, which is attached, delimits the whole of the maritime boundary between the two States in the Bay of
Bengal: in the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, and throughout the continental shelf, and thus resolves a long-
standing international dispute.

This landmark judgment is the first to be handed down by the Hamburg Tribunal in a maritime delimitation case. It deals
with novel questions of the law of the sea, including the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles
and the relationship between such delimitation and the work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. It
is likely to be of major significance for many States with extended continental shelves.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 3046
(as amended by RA 5446)

AN ACT DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES.

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the Philippines describes the national territory as comprising all the territory ceded to the
United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on December 10, 1898, the limits of
which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at
Washington, between the United States and Spain on November 7, 1900, and in the treaty concluded between the United
States and Great Britain on January 2, 1930, and all the territory over which the Government of the Philippine Islands
exercised jurisdiction at the time of the adoption of the Constitution;

WHEREAS, all the waters within the limits set forth in the above-mentioned treaties have always been regarded as part of
the territory of the Philippine Islands;

WHEREAS, all the waters around, between and connecting the various islands of the Philippines archipelago, irrespective
of their width or dimension, have always been considered as necessary appurtenances of the land territory, forming part of
the inland or internal waters of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, all the waters beyond the outermost islands of the archipelago but within the limits of the boundaries set
forth in the aforementioned treaties comprise the territorial sea of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, the baselines from which the territorial sea of the Philippines is determined consist of straight lines joining
appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago; and

WHEREAS, the said baselines should be clarified and specifically defined and described for the information of all
concerned; Now, therefor,

Section 1. The baselines for the territorial sea of the Philippines are hereby defined and described specifically as follows:

Distance in
N. Latitude E. Longitude Asimuth
Meters
Y'ami Island (E) 21º07'03" 121º57'24" 353º27' 71,656
Line 1 (Yami I. (E.) — Tumaruk Rk.)
Tumaruk Rk. 20º28'28" 122º02'06" 347º13' 58,105
Line 2 (Tumaruk Rk. — Balintang Is.)
Balintang Island 19º57'45" 122º09'28" 375º05' 97,755
Line 3 (Balingtang Is.— Didicas Rk.)
Didicas Rk. 19º04'50" 122º12'18" 350º39' 86,155
Line 4 (Didicas Rk. - Iligan Pt.)
Iligan Pt. 18º18'45" 122º20'15" 351º23' 136,030
Line 5 (Iligan Pt. - Ditolong Pt.)
Ditolong Pt. 17º05'50" 122º31'44" 16º56' 34,378
Line 6 (Ditolong Pt. - Diviuisa Pt.)
Diviuisa Pt. 16º48'00" 122º26'06" 21º01' 57,781
Line 7 (Diviuisa Pt. - Dijohan Pt.)
Dijohan Pt. 16º18'45" 122º14'28" 10º52' 142,360
Line 7a (Dijohan Pt. - Bulubalik Pt.)
Bulubalik Pt. 15º02'56" 121º59'30" 300º15' 120,986
Line 8 (Bulubalik Pt. - Tinaga I.)
Tinaga I. 14º29'45" 122º57'40" 286º27' 148,690
Line 9 (Tinaga I. - Horadaba Rks.)
Horadaba Rks. 14º06'41" 124º16'54" 306º34' 1,083
Line 10 (Horadaba Rks. — Matulin Rk.)
Matulin Rk. 14º06'20" 124º17'23" 331º46' 178,480
Line 11 (Matulin Rk. - Atalaya Pt.)
Atalaya Pt. 12º40'59" 125º04'02" 313º30' 22,268
Line 11a (Atalaya Pt. - Finch Rk.)
Finch Rk. 12º32'40" 125º12'57" 313º56' 12,665
Line 12 (Finch Rk. - SE of Manjud Pt.)
SE Manjud pt. 12º27'54" 125º17'59" 322º27' 14,225
Line 12a (SE of Manjud Pt. - Sora Cay)
Sora Cay 12º21'47" 125º22'46" 321º03' 22,793
Line 13 (Sora Cay - Bunga Pt.)
Bunga Pt. 12º12'10" 125º30'40" 331º50' 12,686
Line 13a (Bunga Pt. - Tubabao I.)
Tubabao I. 23º06'06" 125º33'58" 355º22' 83,235
Line 14 (Tubabao I. - Tugnug Pt.)
Tugnug Pt. 11º21'06" 125º37'40" 331º03' 75,326
Line 15 (Tugnug Pt. - Suluan I.)
Suluan Island 10º45'20" 125º57'40" 347º51' 107,070
Line 16 (Suluan I. - Tuason Pt.)
Tuason Pt. 9º48'33" 126º10'00" 355º25' 55,415
Line 17 (Tuason Pt. - Cauit Pt.)
Cauit Pt. 9º18'35" 126º12'25" 342º44' 49,703
Line 18 (Cauit Pt. Arangasa Is.)
Arangasa Is. 8º52'50" 126º20'28" 348º40' 131,330
Line 19 Arangasa Is. - Quinablangan I.)
Quinablangan I. 7º42'58" 126º34'30" 353º08' 25,619
Line 19a (Quinablangan I. - Above Languyan R.)
Above Languyan R. 7º29'10" 126º36'10" 356º52' 22,489
Line 20 (Above Languyan R. — Pusan Pt.)
Pusan Pt. 7º16'59" 126º36'50" 26º39' 36,259
Line 21 (Pusan Pt. - Tuguban Pt.)
Tuguban Pt. 6º59'24" 126º28'00" 20º33' 83,350
Line 22 (Tuguban Pt. - Cape S. Agustin N.)
Cape San Agustin (N) 6º17'03" 126º12'08" 30º16' 1,707
Line 22a (Cape S. Agustin (N) — Cape San
Agustin (S)
Cape San Agustin (S) 6º16'15" 126º11'40" 39º23' 125,100
Line 23 (Cape S. Agustin (S) — Panguil Bato Pt.)
Panguil Bato Pt. 5º23'45" 125º28'42" 66º32' 7,484
Line 23a (Panguil Bato Pt. - Tapundo Pt.)
Tapudo Pt. 5º22'08" 125º24'59" 89º19' 7,667
Line 24 (Tapundo Pt. - Manamil I.)
Manamil I. 5º22'05" 125º20'50" 139º01' 3,051
Line 24a (Manamil I. - Balut I. (W)
Balut I. (W) 5º23'20" 125º19'45" 124º47' 149,840
Line 25 (Balut I. (W) - Middle of 3 Rk. Awash)
Middle of 3 Rk. Awash 6º09'39" 124º13'02" 86º18' 259,400
Line 26 (Middle of 3 Rk. Awash — Tongquil I.)
Tongquil I. 6º00'15" 121º52'45" 61º29' 115,950
Line 27 (Tongquil I. - Sumbasumba I.)
Sumbasumba I. 5º30'10" 120º57'35" 43º19' 44,445
Line 28 (Sumbasumba I. - Kinapusan Is.)
Kinapusan Is. 5º12'37" 120º41'05" 63º14' 101,290
Line 29 (Kinapusan Is. - Manuk Manka I.)
Manuk Manka I. 4º47'50" 119º52'10" 58º30' 80,847
Line 30 (Manuk Manka I. - Frances Reef)
Frances Reef 4º24'54" 119º14'54" 134º34' 29,330
Line 31 (Frances Reef - Bajapa Reef)
Bajapa Reef 4º36'04" 119º03'36" 164º05' 13,480
Line 32 (Bajapa Reef) - Panguan I.)
Panguan I. 4º43'06" 119º01'36" 238º48' 42,470
Line 33 (Panguan I. - Omapoy I.)
Omapoy I. 4º55'02" 119º21'15" 246º11' 51,005
Line 34 (Omapoy I. - Sanga-Sanga I.)
Sanga-Sanga I. 5º06'12" 119º46'30" 170º05' 80,200
Line 35 (Sanga-Sanga I. - Pearl Bank)
Pearl Bank 5º49'04" 119º39'01" 103º13' 137,050
Line 36 (Pearl Bank - Baguan I.)
Baguan I 6º06'00" 118º26'42" 76º52' 15,535
Line 36a (Banguan I. - Taganak I.)
Taganak I. 6º04'05" 118º18'30" 118º39' 24,805
Line 37 (Taganak I. - Gt. Bakkungaan O
Gt. Bakkungaan 6º10'32" 118º06'42" 136º04' 18,470
Line 37a (Gt. Bakkungaan - Sibaung I.)
Sibaung I. 6º17'45" 117º59'45" 215º36' 79,915
Line 38 (Sibaung - I. Muligi I.
Mulugi I. 6º53'00" 118º25'00" 119º14' 140,541
Line 39 (Mulugi I. - Mangsee Is.)
Mangsee Is. 7º30'10" 117º18'20" 134º50 48,815
Line 39a (Mangsee Is. - Cape Melville)
Cape Melville 7º48'50" 116º59'30" 153º54' 15,665
Line 40 (Cape Melville - Ligas Pt.)
Ligas Pt. 7º56'28" 116º55'45" 170º40' 5,666
Line 41 (Ligas Pt. - Cay)
Cay 7º59'30" 116º55'15" 204º52' 22,925
Line 41a (Cay-Secam I.)
Secam I. 8º10'47" 117º00'30" 209º09' 54,900
Line 42 (Secam I. - N. of Canipan Bay)
N. of Canipan Bay 8º36'50" 117º15'06" 218º57' 18,570
Line 43 (N. of Canipan Bay — Tatub Pt.)
Tatub Pt. 8º44'40" 117º21'28" 222º04' 45,125
Line 44 (Tatub Pt. - Punta Baja)
Punta Baja 9º02'50" 117º37'58" 223º30' 32,194
Line 45 (Punta Baja - Malapackun I.)
Malapackun I. 9º15'30" 117º50'04" 225º50' 148,260
Line 46 (Malapackun I. - Piedras Pt.)
Piedras Pt. 10º11'28" 118º48'18" 203º19' 124,900
Line 47 (Piedras Pt. - Tapuitan I.)
Tapuitan I. 11º13'40" 119º15'28" 208º47' 136,590
Line 48 (Tapuitan I. - Pinnacle Rk.)
Pincle Rk. 12º18'34" 119º51'45" 200º40' 134,230
Line 49 (Pinnacle Rk. - Cape Calavite
Cape Calavite 13º26'40" 120º18'00" 148º12' 58,235
Line 50 (Cape Calavite - Cabra I.)
Cabra I. 13º53'30" 120º00'58" 179º26' 113,400
Line 51 (Cabra I. - Capones Is.)
Capones Is. 14º55'00" 120º00'20" 168º09' 58,100
Line 52 (Capones Is. - Pa-Lauig Pt.)
Palauig Pt. 15º25'50" 119º53'40" 164º17' 40,870
Line 53 (Palauig. - Hermana Mayor I.)
Hermana Mayor I. 15º47'10" 119º47'28" 167º10' 20,490
Line 53a (Hermana Mayor — Tambobo Pt.)
Tambobo Pt. 15º58'00" 119º44'55" 181º43' 22,910
Line 54 (Tambobo Pt. - Rena Pt.)
Rena Pt. 16º10'25" 119º45'18" 191º39' 18,675
Line 54a (Rena Pt. - Cape Bolinao
Cape Bolinao 16º20'20" 119º47'25" 226º20' 80,016
Line 55 (Cape Bolinao - Darigayos Pt.)
 Darigayos Pt. 16º50'15" 120º20'00" 179º58' 81,616
Line 56 (Darigayos Pt. - Dile Pt.)
Dile Pt. 17º34'30" 120º19'58" 188º27' 12,060
Line 56a (Disle Pt. - Pinget I.)
Pinget I. 17º40'58" 120º20'58" 192º46' 27,170
Line 56b (Pinget I. - Badoc I.)
Badoc I. 17º55'20" 120º24'22" 195º03' 65,270
Line 57 (Badoc I. - Cape Bojeador)
Cape Bojeador 18º29'30" 120º34'00" 222º16' 101,740
Line 58 (Cape Bojeador - Dalupiri I.)
Dalupiri I. 19º10'15" 121º13'02" 213º29' 25,075
Line 59 (Dalupiri I. - Catanapan Pt.)
Catanapan Pt. 19º21'35" 121º20'56" 202º27' 116,870
Line 60 (Catanapan Pt. - Dequey I.)
Dequey I. 29º20'06" 121º46'35" 180º47' 42,255
Line 61 (Dequey I. - Raile)
Raile 20º43'00" 121º46'55" 200º30' 48,140
Line 62 (Raile - Y'ami I. (W)
Y'ami I.(W) 21º07'26" 121º56'39" 238º40' 237
Line 63 (Y'ami I. (W) - Y'ami I. (M)
Y'ami I. (M) 21º07'30" 121º56'46" 307º08' 1,376
Line 64 (Y'ami I.(M) - Y'ami I. (E)
Y'ami I. (E) 21º07'03" 121º57'24"

Section 2. All waters within the baselines provided for in Section one hereof are considered inland or internal waters of
the Philippines.

Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 17, 1961.

 Merlin Magallona vs Secretary Eduardo
Ermita
In March 2009, Republic Act 9522, an act
defining the archipelagic baselines of the
Philippines was enacted – the law is also
known as the Baselines Law. This law was
meant to comply with the terms of the third
United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS III), ratified by the
Philippines in February 1984.
Professor Merlin Magallona et al
questioned the validity of RA 9522 as they
contend, among others, that the law
decreased the national territory of the
Philippines hence the law is
unconstitutional. Some of their particular
arguments are as follows:
a. the law abandoned the demarcation set
by the Treaty of Paris and other ancillary
treaties – this also resulted to the exclusion
of our claim over Sabah;
b. the law, as well as UNCLOS itself,
describes the Philippine waters as
“archipelagic” waters which, in
international law, opens our
waters landward of the baselines to
maritime passage by all vessels (innocent
passage) and aircrafts (overflight),
undermining Philippine sovereignty and
national security, contravening the
country’s nuclear-free policy, and
damaging marine resources, in violation of
relevant constitutional provisions;
c. the classification of the Kalayaan Island
Group (KIG), as well as the Scarborough Shoal (bajo de masinloc), as a “regime of islands” pursuant to UNCLOS results
in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contentions of Magallona et al are tenable.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 9522, or UNCLOS, itself is not a means to acquire, or lose,
territory. The treaty and the baseline law has nothing to do with the acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of the
Philippine territory. What controls when it comes to acquisition or loss of territory is the international law principle
on occupation, accretion, cession and prescription and NOT the execution of multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-
use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves.
The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In fact it increased it. Under the old law amended by RA 9522
(RA 3046), we adhered with the rectangular lines enclosing the Philippines. The area that it covered was 440,994
square nautical miles (sq. na. mi.). But under 9522, and with the inclusion of the exclusive economic zone, the extent of
our maritime was increased to 586,210 sq. na. mi. (See image below for comparison)
If any, the baselines law is a notice to the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine areas
within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights.

Anent their particular contentions:

a. The law did not abandon the Sabah claim. This is evident on the provision of Section 2 of RA 9522:
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is
without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in
North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.
b. UNCLOS may term our waters as “archipelagic waters” and that we may term it as our “internal waters”, but the
bottom line is that our country exercises sovereignty over these waters and UNCLOS itself recognizes that. However, due
to our observance of international law, we allow the exercise of others of their right of innocent passage. No modern State
can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in accordance with customary
international law without risking retaliatory measures from the international community.
c. The classification of the KIG (or the Spratly’s), as well as the Scarborough Shoal, as a regime of islands did not
diminish our maritime area. Under UNCLOS and under the baselines law, since they are regimes of islands, they generate
their own maritime zones – in short, they are not to be enclosed within the baselines of the main archipelago (which is the
Philippine Island group). This is because if we do that, then we will be enclosing a larger area which would already depart
from the provisions of UNCLOS – that the demarcation should follow the natural contour of the archipelago.
Nevertheless, we still continue to lay claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal through effective occupation.
NOTES:
Under UNCLOS and the baselines law, we have three levels of maritime zones where we exercise treaty-based rights:
a. territorial waters – 12 nautical miles from the baselines; where we exercise sovereignty
b. contiguous zone – 24 nautical miles from the baselines; jurisdiction where we can enforce customs, fiscal, immigration,
and sanitation laws (CFIS).
c. exclusive economic zone – 200 nautical miles from the baselines; where we have the right to exploit the living and non-
living resources in the exclusive economic zone
Note: a fourth zone may be added which is the continental shelf – this is covered by Article 77 of the UNCLOS.