Sanae Takaichi, Japan’s prime minister, and Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the Philippines’ president, throughout a news convention on the Akasaka Palace state visitor home in Tokyo, Japan, May 28, 2026. /CFP
Editor’s notice: Yu Minna, a particular commentator for CGTN, is affiliate professor on the School of Law of Ocean University of China (OUC). The article displays the creator’s opinions and never essentially the views of CGTN.
On May 28, 2026, following a gathering between Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and visiting Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Tokyo and Manila issued a joint assertion saying the beginning of the so-called maritime delimitation talks of their respective unique financial zones (EEZ) and continental shelf.
In swift response, on May 29, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning acknowledged that the world the 2 international locations introduced they may delimit is east of China’s Taiwan island. China has an unique financial zone and a continental shelf on this space in accordance with home legislation and worldwide legislation, together with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Japan and the Philippines’ so-called maritime delimitation talks represent a flagrant violation of China’s maritime rights and pursuits, UNCLOS, and different worldwide legislation and fundamental norms governing worldwide relations.
The waters east of Taiwan island are on no account the personal property of Japan and the Philippines
The waters east of Taiwan island carry China’s maritime rights and pursuits extending into the Western Pacific and join the excessive seas and the worldwide seabed space. This area is on no account a “legal vacuum” that may be delimited completely by Japan and the Philippines.
To the north of this space, a dispute over the Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands persists between China and Japan, and the delimitation of the East China Sea stays unresolved. Geologically, the Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands are linked to the primary island of Taiwan, separated from Japan’s Ryukyu Islands by the Okinawa Trough, which plunges to depths of over 2,000 meters.
The Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands have been Chinese territory since historic occasions. Although they had been unlawfully seized by Japan, they had been restored to China after World War IIÂ (WWII). China claims that its continental shelf within the East China Sea extends naturally to the Okinawa Trough (pure prolongation). Consequently, Beijing doesn’t acknowledge the unilateral “median line” within the East China Sea put ahead by Tokyo, which relies on Japan’s unlawful claims over China’s Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands and Japan’s southwestern distant islands. Japan’s try and legitimize its unlawful claims and squeeze China’s lawful rights by maritime delimitation with the Philippines will inevitably exacerbate regional tensions and elevate the chance of geopolitical battle.
To the south of this space, China and the Philippines share intensive overlapping maritime claims within the Bashi Channel. Located between China’s Taiwan island and the Philippine archipelago, the Bashi Channel is an space the place China enjoys an EEZ and a continental shelf. These rights overlap with the maritime claims asserted by the Philippines primarily based on its archipelagic baselines.
By pursuing bilateral delimitation with Japan, Manila is trying to bypass China to forcibly repair its northern maritime boundaries and create a fait accompli. This is a calculated try and “open a second battlefield” exterior the South China Sea to unlawfully encroach upon China’s maritime rights and pursuits.
To the east, Japan is exploiting Okinotori Rock to unlawfully annex areas of the excessive seas and the worldwide seabed space. Okinotori consists of two remoted rocks within the deep Western Pacific. According to Article 121(3) of UNCLOS, rocks which can’t maintain human habitation or financial lifetime of their very own shall haven’t any EEZ or continental shelf; each state is entitled to a territorial sea not exceeding 12 nautical miles at most.
However, Japan mischaracterizes these “rocks” as “islands” to assert an enormous EEZ and continental shelf spanning over 40,000 sq. kilometers, trying to swallow huge expanses of the excessive seas, the worldwide seabed space, and the sources inside.
Facing worldwide scrutiny and strain, Tokyo has adopted a detour tactic, in search of to bundle this unlawful declare into maritime delimitation negotiations with Manila to safe de facto recognition. Such a political stunt – premised on a backroom deal that damages the collective pursuits of the worldwide neighborhood – is destined to be a self-deluding farce.
Bilateral delimitation between Japan and the Philippines flagrantly violates worldwide legislation
The closed-door, bilateral maritime delimitation carried out by Japan and the Philippines to the exclusion of China is a grave violation of worldwide legislation.
First, it severely infringes upon China’s lawful maritime rights as a coastal state. China holds indeniable sovereignty over the Taiwan island, the Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands, and Nanhai Zhudao (the South China Sea islands). In accordance with UNCLOS, China, as a coastal state, lawfully claims maritime entitlements together with its EEZ and the continental shelf.
Ignoring these geographical and authorized realities, Japan and the Philippines have bypassed China to conduct bilateral negotiations. The essence of their motion is a malicious try and strip China of its professional standing as a coastal state in these waters and overtly deny China’s sovereignty and maritime claims. This constitutes a elementary violation of the aim of UNCLOS.
Second, it violates the obligations relating to maritime delimitation beneath UNCLOS. Articles 74 and 83 of UNCLOS dictate that the delimitation of the EEZ and the continental shelf between states with reverse or adjoining coasts shall be effected by settlement on the idea of worldwide legislation to be able to obtain an equitable answer. The waters east of China’s Taiwan Island symbolize a traditional multilateral zone with overlapping entitlements.
By intentionally excluding China, probably the most important stakeholder, from the negotiations, Japan and the Philippines try to privately eliminate maritime areas involving China’s sovereignty and sovereign rights. This “closed-door pie-cutting” robber logic completely departs from the core requirement of UNCLOS for equitable delimitation, rendering all subsequent negotiations null and void from the very outset.
An aerial view of the scenic Xisha Islands, South China Sea, February 12, 2026. /CFP
Third, it overtly flouts the elemental precept of third-party consent in worldwide legislation. In the landmark “Monetary Gold” case, Italy and the United Kingdom introduced a dispute earlier than the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over gold looted by the Nazis. However, as a result of Albania, the true proprietor of the gold, was absent and had not consented to the jurisdiction, the ICJ finally dominated that it couldn’t adjudicate the case. The underlying logic of this precedent is self-evident in worldwide legislation: No state or tribunal has the suitable to adjudicate or strip a 3rd get together of its authorized rights with out its consent.
Applying this to the present state of affairs, the maritime areas east of Taiwan island are characterised by overlapping sovereign rights and complicated multilateral pursuits. For Japan and the Philippines to “cut the pie” on this maritime area, their technical premise and authorized logic should inherently contain the unauthorized presumption and unilateral framing of the boundaries of China’s lawful maritime rights on this space. Just because the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to rule because of the absence of Albania’s consent, the closed-door delimitation by Japan and the Philippines, which utterly excludes China, is a blatant trampling of the precept of third-party consent.
Finally, the bilateral negotiations and any subsequent preparations can’t have an effect on or diminish China’s sovereignty and lawful claims. The maxim “Pacta Tertiis Nec Nocent Nec Prosunt” – a treaty doesn’t create both obligations or rights for a 3rd state with out its consent – is a bedrock precept codified within the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Article 35 of the VCLT additional stipulates that an obligation arises for a 3rd State from a provision of a treaty provided that the events to the treaty intend the availability to be the means of building the duty and the third state expressly accepts that obligation in writing.
The maritime traces unilaterally drawn by Japan and the Philippines are, in essence, an try and impose on China limits that they themselves have outlined. This quantities to a disguised deprivation of China’s lawful rights, making a misunderstanding that Beijing is obligated to not cross these self-proclaimed traces, and even implies that China ought to relinquish its sovereignty over related islands and reefs. In the absence of China’s specific written consent, nonetheless, this association is totally unlawful, null, and void vis–vis China beneath worldwide treaty legislation.
Geopolitical calculations can by no means override the rule of worldwide legislation, nor can the backroom maneuvering between Japan and the Philippines shake China’s sovereignty and maritime rights and pursuits. This geopolitical farce, constructed on sand and spun from skinny air, will inevitably vanish and crumble earlier than the unshakeable authority of worldwide legislation.
(If you wish to contribute and have particular experience, please contact us at [email protected]. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, previously Twitter, to find the most recent commentaries within the CGTN Opinion Section.)
Source: CGTN