Sorry, last paragraph should read 'the oil rig incident'. That pass 10 min no edit thing is really bugging me. Also I should say I really like that colorful topographic map. It shows that Itu Aba (Taiping) Island is roughly the center of all Chinese reef reclamations. Also that Fiery Cross Reef is really at the high sea even after takes into the account of extended continental shelf claim of Palawan, so China can build whatever it wants with it without violating either Philippines or Vietnam's EEZ.
Regarding the oil rig incident in the Paracels, the rig was 17 nm off the coast of Triton Island which is well within the 24 nm contiguous zone. In my opinion, that trumps any argument about what median line of overlapping EEZs. If the debate goes back to who owns the Paracels, I'm just gonna refer back to North Vietnam's own diplomatic note acknowledging the territory claims laid out by China. The current govt of Vietnam is the same govt of North Vietnam. All the argument about it wasn't a unified Vietnam back then is moot.
Regarding this latest article, it's one of the more objective articles I've seen from the Philippine side. However, there are still holes in the argument.
For one thing, Itu Aba (Taiping) isn't a trump card, it's really the main focus since the main thrust of the Philippine argument is UNLCOS and the UN. The UN adheres to the One China principle so Itu Aba's EEZ is the first and foremost factor in dissecting these disputes. The Philippine argument only looks at this issue as the last resort and grudgingly at that.
The claim of continental shelf - I was initially perplexed as I was subscribing to the physical definition of continental shelf and wondered how does a country consisting of islands have any continental shelf which is further delineated by the Manila Trench. But I found out the UN simple uses the term as a legal definition of seabed. Having said that, UNCLOS does not simply give any country up to 350 nm of continental shelf where there are opposing or adjacent coasts (Article 83). So Itu Aba's legal continental shelf needs to be factored in.
Then the argument of Fiery Cross or Subi while outside Palawan's 200 nm but within 350 nm of its shelf is another moot point because it would be closer to Itu Aba's shelf than Palawan's. In return I would ask how does the Philippines justify occupying Thitu Island which is outside of Palawan's 200 nm? It also wasn't terra nullius since ROC took control of the Spratlys from Japan vis-a-vis WW2 surrender with 4 warships, one being Taiping thus name of Itu Aba. And Thitu is much closer to Itu Aba'a shelf than Palawan again.
The author mentioned China using loopholes created by the Philippines' legal position. But that's only because the Philippines' argument tries to use loopholes itself such as overlooking Itu Aba or trying at this point to merely call it a rock with no EEZ.
The issue about China not notifying others of its reclamation. Vietnam currently is also reclaiming, don't believe ever hearing about them notifying others. A lot of the violations that China is accused of committing were done by the accusers as well.
