Where is majesty of the seas based

The move aims to contribute to realising the “Strategy for Sustainable Development of Vietnam’s Marine Economy by 2030 with a Vision to 2045”.

According to Standing Deputy Secretary of the provincial Party Committee Mai Van Huynh, the province is prioritising building its maritime sector to boost economic development while protecting the environment and strengthening national defence at sea and on islands.

Major investments have been made in several spearhead industries, such as seafood, tourism-marine services, energy, and maritime industry, among others, helping the province rank second among the 13 Mekong Delta localities in terms of maritime economic development in 2020.

The sea-based economy accounted for 79.75 percent of the local gross regional domestic product (GRDP) during the year, he added.

High-capacity fishing vessels have been built to bolster off-shore fishing, contributing to sustainable fisheries and the protection of the nation’s sovereignty over sea and islands.

With vast fishing grounds and a strong fleet, the province’s annual seafood output tops 500,000 tonnes and its aquaculture yield was estimated at more than 264,100 tonnes in 2020.

Kien Giang is working to secure a total seafood catch and aquaculture output of 800,000 tonnes by 2025.

According to the provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, farming areas in Phu Quoc city, Kien Hai island district, the island commune of Tien Hai in Ha Tien city, and Son Hai and Hon Nghe in Kien Luong district will focus on farming groupers, cobias, yellow-fin pompanos, and seabass, as well as blue lobster, mantis shrimp, crab, and oysters for pearl farming.

Meanwhile, coastal areas in Ha Tien city and the districts of Kien Luong, Hon Dat, An Minh, and An Bien will develop zones for farming molluscs such as blood cockles, saltwater mussels, green mussels, and oysters.

Furthermore, due attention will be paid to high-tech aquaculture, the development of quality staples with high economic value, and measures to prevent illegal fishing.

Local maritime tourism has become a locomotive for growth of the tourism sector, with renowned destinations like Phu Quoc Island. A huge amount of capital has been injected into Phu Quoc city for years, most of which comes from strategic investors like Vingroup, Sun Group, BIM Group, and CEO Group.

According to the provincial Department of Tourism, the province welcomed over 5.2 million visitors in 2020, accounting for 55.8 percent of the plan but down 40.7 percent year-on-year. Revenue from tourism services was put at more than 7.8 trillion VND (339.8 million USD), or 39.3 percent of the target, and down 57.7 percent compared to 2019.

Local tourism is seeing a sound recovery thanks to supportive stimulus measures.

The province will sharpen its focus on tourism infrastructure at key attractions, including Phu Quoc Island, which is to become a world-class marine eco-tourism services hub.

Vice Director of the Department of Tourism Bui Quoc Thai said the province encourages all economic sectors to build and diversify local tourism products, as well as join in efforts to form a major tourism centre.

Regarding energy development, the province prioritises investment in wind power, electrification, solar power, and many other sources of renewable energy.

In the meantime, it has plans to build coastal roads and improve logistics services, while working to preserve ocean biodiversity and restore ocean ecosystems, in particular protecting mangrove forest in tandem with the effective and sustainable exploitation of marine resources.

Source: VNA

Experts believe that China already has a significant presence in the East Sea, going ahead of the US, and will use this advantage to force small countries to follow them.

China increases activities to monopolize East Sea

Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, tensions in the East Sea have increased.

Decree No.11/2021/ND-CP provides regulations on the allocation of sea areas. (Photo: VNA)

Hanoi (VNA) – The Government has recently issued Decree No.11/2021/ND-CP providing regulations on the allocation of sea areas to organisations and individuals for exploitation and use of marine resources.

The duration of sea area allocation is considered and decided in each specific case based on the request for sea area allocation and investment project. The maximum duration for sea area allocation must not exceed 30 years, which can be extended for many times, but the total extension period must not exceed 20 years.

With projects with more-than-30-year investment licences, the duration of sea area allocation will be considered at over 30 years, but it should not exceed the duration listed in the investment licences .

According to the Decree, when the sea area allocation duration expires while organisations or individuals want to continue exploiting marine resources, competent authorities should consider the allocation for them if they are able to show a valid marine resource exploitation document, and their use of the sea area in accordance with regulated planning.

Organisations and individuals with allocated sea areas have the right to use the areas for marine resource exploitation; propose the extension of allocation duration, the return of the sea areas, and the amendments and supplements to sea area allocation decisions; use information and data related to the allocated sea areas as provided by the law; receive compensation when competent state management agencies recover the sea areas for defence and security purposes; and complain or begin lawsuits when their legitimate interests are violated.

Regarding their obligations, organisations and individuals must use the allocated areas for proper purposes. They are not allowed to encroach the sea, violate the approved planning, destroy the sea ecosystem, and carry out activities that affect the nation’s defence, security, sovereignty and benefits. Additionally, they must not hinder basic surveys, inspections and scientific research activities.

The decree also defines financial issues related to sea area allocation . Accordingly, organisations and individuals must pay sea area use levies before they use the sea areas./.

The Hanoitimes – So far, five countries have raised voice over the US crystal clear position in the South China Sea.

Malaysia and Australia weigh in regional countries to call for peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea after the US released a statement rejecting most of China’s claims in the resources-rich sea.

South China Sea has made headlines these days. Image: Zeenews

On July 16, Malaysia said that all parties must work together to ensure peace, security, and stability in the South China Sea, noting that matters relating to this sea must be resolved peacefully based on the universally recognized principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982.

“Malaysia will also continue to play an active role in ensuring that the South China Sea remains a sea of peace and trade,” Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dato’ Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said in a statement.

Dato’ Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein. Photo: The Star

The minister went on saying that “As a claimant state, Malaysia has always been consistent in our stand, firm in our commitment to safeguard our sovereignty, sovereign rights and interests in the South China Sea. Malaysia’s national interests remain paramount.”

Regarding the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (CoC), the Malaysian top diplomat said his country looks forward to continuing the discussions in an effective and substantive manner with the aim of ensuring the rights and interests of all parties.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Credit: Scott Morrison Twitter

On the same day, Australia affirmed that it would continue to advocate “very strongly” the freedom of navigation through the South China Sea.

“Australia will continue to adopt a very consistent position,” Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison told a media briefing in Canberra when asked if the country backed the position of the US on maritime claims in the South China Sea.

Kuala Lumpur and Canberra are the latest parties voicing over the South China Sea following the US first-ever crystal clear position in the disputed sea that marks the trade transits worth more than US$5 trillion per year.

On July 13, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are “completely unlawful” and denounced the Asian giant stepping up aggression in this sea.

He noted that the US stands with the international community in defense of freedom of the seas and will support regional countries to preserve their maritime boundaries.

Shortly after the White House’s statement, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia reacted to it. Among the trio, Hanoi and Manila welcomed Washington’s stance and strongly support it.

Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan have their own assertions in the sea that China claims up to 90%.

The Hanoitimes – Notes verbales, unsigned formal diplomatic communication, would largely ruin China’s legal position.

The importance of Malaysia’s notes verbales, and those filed by other states, to the United Nations to protest China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea is that they challenge the legal basis of China’s claims on the basis of an Arbitral Tribunal Award established under UNCLOS Annex VII.

If the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) ruled in favour of Malaysia, this would be a huge blow to China’s legal position not to say China’s prestige, Emeritus professor Carl Thayer, a veteran Southeast Asia regional expert, told Hanoitimes in an interview.

Claimants in South China Sea where more than US$5 trillion in cargo passes through per year. Source: Visiontimes

What does a note verbale mean?

Prof. Carl Thayer at the University of New South Wales, Canberra said a note verbale is an unsigned formal diplomatic communication. It is how states communicate with each other and with international institutions such as the CLCS. Each institution has its own rules of procedure on how states should communicate their views and how the institution, in this case the CLCS will handle these claims.

The professor went on to say that in the case of the CLCS, a note verbale sets out a state’s official legal position on claims for an extended continental shelf. If a state fails to respond to a claim, this could be taken as evidence that the state acquiesced. In other words, China must submit a counter claim to demonstrate that the issue in question is in dispute. Under the CLCS’ Rules of Procedure, the Commission cannot proceed if there is a dispute between two or more states.

Role of Malaysia in protesting chorus

Malaysian-contracted drillship West Capella in the South China Sea. Photo: Marinetraffic/Manuel Hernandez

Regarding Malaysia’s July 29, 2020 note verbale to the CLCS, the expert said it is a follow-up to its original partial submission to the CLCS and a Chinese counter-submission, both issued on December 12, 2019.

In December 2019, Malaysia made a submission for an extended continental shelf in the northern part of the South China Sea. This claim was “without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts…” In other words, Malaysia left the door open to negotiations with its Southeast Asian neighbors in cases where their claims to an extended continental shelf overlapped.

Malaysia’s claim for an extended continental shelf was based on the 2016 Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the case the Philippines versus China. The Tribunal found that China’s claim to “historic rights” had been superseded by the UNCLOS and that China’s nine-dash line has no basis in international law.

China filed a counter-protest to Malaysia December 2019 note verbale. According to the CLCS Rules of Procedure, Annex 5(a), “In cases where a land or maritime dispute exists, the Commission shall not consider and qualify a submission made by any of the States concerned in the dispute…”

The professor noted “The purpose of Malaysia’s most recent note verbale was to forestall the CLCS from invoking Annex 5(a) and declining to hear Malaysia’s case.” Malaysia’s argued that “China’s claims to the maritime features in the South China Sea has no basis under international law.”

Campaign of “lawfare” waging on

Prof. Thayer has specified the response of related parties and show how the chorus against China’s South China Sea claims means.

He said a general proposition in international law is that international courts and arbitral tribunals will look at state practice following a ruling by an arbitral tribunal to decide on disputes brought before them. The decision by President Duterte of the Philippines to set aside the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal Award and the silence by claimant states undermined international law and left the door open for China to argue its case on the basis of “historic rights”.

“ Malaysia ’s December 2019 submission to the CLCS broke this legal logjam because it was the first of several submissions by other countries rejecting the legal basis of China’s claims,” the professor said, noting that “it also set in motion a legal tit for tat as China responded to each and every submission.”

Philippines ruled favor of in 2016 in Scarborough Shoal in lawsuit with China. Photo: Rappler

The Philippines was the first country to follow Malaysia’s lead. It submitted two notes verbales on March 6, 2020. The first submission supported the 2016 Award of the Arbitral Tribunal and argued that “China’s positions are inconsistent with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea…” The second submission by the Philippines dealt with an overlap of continental shelves with Malaysia.

A Vietnamese coastguard ship crew member looks at Chinese coastguard vessels in the South China Sea. Photo: Reuters

Vietnam submitted three notes verbales. The first note verbale (March 30, 2020) asserted that China’s claims “seriously violate Vietnam’s sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the East Sea (international known as the South China Sea). Vietnam argued that China’s claims in the East Sea exceeded “the limits provided in UNCLOS, including claiming historic rights; these claims are without lawful effect.”

Vietnam’s second notes verbale, dated April 10, 2020, was in response to Malaysia and raised matters relating to the delimitation of continental shelves. Once again Vietnam affirmed it claims to sovereignty and sovereign rights over the Paracel and Spratly islands. Vietnam repeated its claims to sovereignty and sovereign rights over the Paracel and Spratly islands in its third note verbale, also dated April 10, 2020, in response to the Philippines.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo at Selat Lampa Port, Natuna Islands, Indonesia on Jan 8, 2020. Photo: AP

Indonesia was the fourth country to file a note verbale with the CLCS on May 26, 2020. Indonesia made three assertions: (1) it was not a party to territorial disputes in the South China Sea, (2) Indonesia’s maritime entitlements were confirmed by the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal Award, and (3) China’s “Nine-Dash line, implying historic rights, claim clearly lacks international legal basis and is tantamount to upset UNCLOS 1982.”

The American aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan on exercises in the South China Sea. Photo: EPA

The United States was the fifth country to submit a note verbale to the CLCS on June 1, 2020. The US reiterated its previous objections to China’s maritime claims and endorsed the Arbitral Tribunal’s dismissal of China’s claims to “historic rights” as incompatible with UNCLOS. The US further objected to China’s grouping widely dispersed features as a unit in order to claim that the waters enclosed by straight baselines were internal and that the unit could claim maritime entitlements.

The crew of the Royal Australian Navy Anzac class frigate HMAS Perth. Photo: Australian Defense Force

Australia was the sixth country to submit a note verbale to the CLCS. Australia provided the most detailed rejection of China’s claims. For example, Australia rejected any Chinese “maritime claims that do not adhere to its [UNCLOS] rules on baselines, maritime zones and classification of features. Australia also rejected to “China’s claims to ‘historic rights’ or ‘maritime rights and interests’ as established in the ‘long course of historical practice’ in the South China Sea.”

Like the United States, Australia declared it was illegal to draw “straight baselines connecting the outermost points of maritime features or ‘island groups’ in the South China Sea…,” claim internal waters inside these straight baselines, or claim maritime zones from submerged features.

Australia was the first country to mention the Paracel Islands. Australia stated it did not accept China’s argument that its sovereignty claims were “widely accepted by the international community” and cited protests by the Philippines and Vietnam to document its objections. Australia also expressed its strong concern over China’s claims to have “continuously and effectively” exercised sovereignty over low-tide elevations.

Finally, Australia disputed China’s claim that it was not bound by the Arbitral Tribunal Award.

The Hanoitimes – With Malaysia’s latest move, the rejection of China’s maritime claims in the resources-rich sea weighs on than ever before.

Malaysia has said China’s claims to maritime features in the South China Sea have “no basis under international law.”

Syed Mohamad Hasrin bin Tengku Hussin, Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations. Photo: Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Malaysia has underscored its legal position on this sea in a note verbale sent on July 29 to the United Nations’ Secretary General António with reference to China’s Note Verbale CML/14/2019 dated December 12, 2019, saying “the government of Malaysia rejects in its entirety the content of the Note Verbale of the People’s Republic of China.”

“The Government of Malaysia rejects China’s claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the ‘nine-dash line’ as they are contrary to the Convention (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 – UNCLOS 1982) and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention,” read the note verbale.

Shahriman Lockman, fellow at Institut Kajian Strategik dan Antarabangsa and fellow at Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia, has clarified the phrase China’s claims to maritime features in the South China Sea have “no basis under international law” that none of the rocks in the South China Sea belongs to China.

The New Straits Times cited Dr Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli from the Royal Malaysian Navy Volunteer Reserve, as saying that international law dictates that a nation must be a persistent objector in objecting practices of other states it is not in agreement with.

He went on to say that remaining silent is not an option, noting that objection has to be done persistently, continuously, and constantly as reaffirmed by Malaysia’s Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein through a report in Berita Harian on July 16.

Therefore, China and other claimant states – all of which are state-parties to the UNCLOS – must act in accordance with what is allowed by the convention in pushing forward the consultation on the Code of Conduct to further safeguard peace and stability of the South China Sea, Dr Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli emphasized.

An Exocet missile is fired from a Malaysian ship during military training in the South China Sea, July 16, 2019. Photo: Royal Malaysian Navy

“Lawfare” chorus

Earlier on July 23, in a note verbale to the UN, Australia rejected any China’s maritime claims that are inconsistent with the UNCLOS 1982 and Chinese claims to ‘historic rights’ or ‘maritime rights and interests’ in the South China Sea.

Australia said it does not accept China’s assertion in its note of April 17, 2020 that its sovereignty claims over the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands are “widely recognized by the international community.”

There is no legal basis for China to draw straight baselines connecting the outermost points of maritime features or ‘island groups’ in the South China Sea, including around the ‘Four Sha’ or ‘continental’ or ‘outlying’ archipelagos, according to Permanent Mission of the Commonwealth of Australia to the UN.

Australia has been the second nation without South China Sea boundaries to turn down China’s unlawful claims.

On June 1, US Representative to the UN Kelly Craft said in a letter sent to the UN secretary general that the US “rejects these maritime claims as inconsistent with international law as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.”

Washington sent the letter regarding Note Verbale No. CML/14/2019 sent by the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China on December 12, 2019 in response to the submission by Malaysia to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) dated December 12, 2019.

On March 30, Vietnam sent a dispatch turning down China’s claims on the South China Sea, saying China’s claims go beyond the UNCLOS 1982 and infringe on the UNCLOS-based rights of the other claimants.

Hanoi has said that the UNCLOS is the sole source for rights over waters.