https://www.state.gov/study-on-the-peoples-republic-of-chinas-south-china-sea-maritime-claims/
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/LIS150-SCS.pdf

Executive Summary

This study examines the maritime claims of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the South China Sea. The PRC’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea are inconsistent with international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“Convention”).

The PRC asserts four categories of maritime claims* in the South China Sea:
Sovereignty claims over maritime features. The PRC claims “sovereignty” over more than one hundred features in the South China Sea that are submerged below the sea surface at high tide and are beyond the lawful limits of any State’s territorial sea. Such claims are inconsistent with international law, under which such features are not subject to a lawful sovereignty claim or capable of generating maritime zones such as a territorial sea.
Straight baselines. The PRC has either drawn, or asserts the right to draw, “straight baselines” that enclose the islands, waters, and submerged features within vast areas of ocean space in the South China Sea. None of the four “island groups” claimed by the PRC in the South China Sea (“Dongsha Qundao,” “Xisha Qundao,” “Zhongsha Qundao,” and “Nansha Qundao”) meet the geographic criteria for using straight baselines under the Convention. Additionally, there is no separate body of customary international law that supports the PRC position that it may enclose entire island groups within straight baselines.
Maritime zones. The PRC asserts claims to internal waters, a territorial sea, an exclusive economic zone, and a continental shelf that are based on treating each claimed South China Sea island group “as a whole.” This is not permitted by international law. The seaward extent of maritime zones must be measured from lawfully established baselines, which are normally the low-water line along the coast. Within its claimed maritime zones, the PRC also makes numerous jurisdictional claims that are inconsistent with international law.
Historic rights. The PRC asserts that it has “historic rights” in the South China Sea. This claim has no legal basis and is asserted by the PRC without specificity as to the nature or geographic extent of the “historic rights” claimed.
The overall effect of these maritime claims is that the PRC unlawfully claims sovereignty or some form of exclusive jurisdiction over most of the South China Sea. These claims gravely undermine the rule of law in the oceans and numerous universally-recognized provisions of international law reflected in the Convention. For this reason, the United States and numerous other States have rejected these claims in favor of the rules-based international maritime order within the South China Sea and worldwide.
* Islands in the South China Sea over which the PRC claims sovereignty are also claimed by other States. This study examines only the maritime claims asserted by the PRC and does not examine the merits of sovereignty claims to islands in the South China Sea asserted by the PRC or other States. The United States takes no position as to which country has sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea, which is not a matter governed by the law of the sea.

References to the Philippines

In 2016, having considered the PRC’s dashed-line claim, an arbitral tribunal convened in accordance with the Convention reached a similar conclusion in The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China). The arbitral tribunal issued a unanimous decision, which is final and binding on the Philippines and the PRC, finding that: 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” are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention [and that] the Convention superseded any historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein.
The PRC claims sovereignty over all of the South China Sea islands (and numerous other maritime features, as discussed below). Each island or group of islands is claimed by at least one other claimant: Philippines (Scarborough Reef and some of the Spratly Islands), Malaysia (some of the Spratly Islands), Brunei (Louisa Reef, within the Spratly Islands), Vietnam (Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands), and Taiwan (all islands and island groups). The geographic features described above are located within the dashed lines that have appeared in various locations on some PRC maps since being published by the Nationalist government of the Republic of China in 1947.
Numerous States, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, Vietnam, the United Kingdom, and the United States have protested the PRC’s baselines around the Paracel Islands as inconsistent with international law as reflected in the Convention.
Although the PRC has not officially promulgated straight baselines around the areas it describes as Nansha Qundao, its statements asserting the right to draw such baselines have led to opposition by numerous States, including Australia, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam. Considering that very few States publicly protest excessive maritime claims, these protests by a relatively large number of States are a particularly forceful rejection of the PRC’s legal position.
The tribunal’s award is final and binding on the PRC and the Philippines pursuant to Article 296 of the Convention.
The international community, including littoral States of the South China Sea, has made clear that it rejects the PRC’s historic rights claim. Australia, France, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam have all publicly objected to the PRC’s historic rights claim, which is inconsistent with international law. The tribunal in The South China Sea Arbitration also rejected the PRC’s claims to historic rights in the South China Sea.

SUBIC Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) Chairman & Administrator Wilma T. Eisma said she welcomes a congressional inquiry into the alleged possible links of POGO (Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators) Chinese employees and illegal drugs in the Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ).

“I welcome the probe to thresh out and expose any party illegally operating in Subic,” Eisma told Subic Bay News, “SBMA will cooperate in the investigation.”

The SBMA head made the statement after Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, chairman of the House Committee on Dangerous Drugs, initiated a congressional probe on the alleged links to illegal drugs of some POGO workers inside the Freeport following the arrest on Thursday (July 30) night of six (6) Chinese nationals trying to exit the Freeport with a kilo of shabu estimated to be worth P6.8M.

Eisma said “the successful apprehension of the 6 Chinese suspects, as well as recent buy-busts in the Freeport, resulted from the cooperation and support of SBMA law enforcers with other govt. agencies like the police and PDEA”

A composite team of government agencies led by the Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency-National Capital Region (PDEA-NCR), National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA), Intelligence Service-Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) and Philippine National Police-Highway Patrol Group PNP-HPG collared the suspects at the Freeport’s Tipo Gate aboard a Nissan X-Trail vehicle.

Two other vehicles, a Toyota Alphard and Hi-Ace Van allegedly slipped through the team’s dragnet, however, that prompted Barbers, among other reasons, to seek the house inquiry.

““What is worrisome and suspicious is that only one (1) kilo of shabu was seized or ‘declared’ to have been seized from the suspects,” Barbers said in an earlier statement, “Hindi siguro sasama pa ang ISAFP at NICA sa ops ng PDEA-NCR kung paisa-isang kilo lang ang lakad na ito.”

“Kung totoong minonitor at pinostehan in a period of time ng ating mga anti-drug at intel agents and mga suspects, sigurado na malalaman nila kung sino-sino ang mga ito at ang kanilang mga kasabwat, pati na mga sasakyan na gamit nila,” he added.

POGO firms in the Subic Bay Freeport employ thousands of Chinese from Communist China to cater to gamblers in mainland China, online.

Housed in hotels, some already operating exclusively for POGO firms, as well as former schools and a former hospital, they enjoy limited interference even from SBMA authorities, whose inspection attempt at the height of the lockdown due to the Covid-19 (Wuhan Virus) pandemic to check if it really ceased operations, was denied. (VVV)

###

Initial information from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) obtained from the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) identified the arrested individuals as Jiang Peng, Liu Qiao Zhi, Huang Du, Chen Pingxing, Xia Fayong, and Fan Sheng Jian.

All 6 were aboard a Nissan X-Trail vehicle (XTP 513) that government agents flagged down in the guise of having committed traffic violations.

Also seized from the suspects was a .45 Caliber pistol with seven (7) live bullets, cellphones, IDs, wallets and passports.

Intelligence sources said two (2) other vehicles, a Toyota Alphard and a Hi-Ace Van, were able to get away, or avoid the dragnet.

Aside from PDEA National Capital Region (NCR), the composite team included operatives of the Intelligence Service-Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) and the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA), manifesting the immensity of the operation.

###

Ito Ang Totoo: napaka-istratehiko nga naman ng Subic Bay hindi lamang sa larangan ng komersiyo kundi pati sa aspeto na pang-militar at seguridad sa bahaging ito ng Asya.

Kaya nang magsara ang Hanjin, ang kompanyang Koreano na gumagawa ng mga dambuhalang barko, kumilos din ang mga Intsik para maka-take-over sa mga pasilidad nito.

Gayunman, tiniyak na ni Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) Chairman and Administrator Wilma T. Eisma na sa mga susunod na buwan ay muling magbubukas ang shipbuilding facility sa ilalim ng kompanyang ayaw pa niyang pangalanan pero sigurado hindi raw Intsik.

Ito Ang Totoo: katakot-takot naman ang usapan nitong mga nakaraang araw kaugnay ng Grande at Chiquita Islands dito pa rin sa Subic, na umano’y kinukuha rin ng mga Intsik.

Sa harap ng mga paglapastangan ng China sa karapatan ng Pilipinas sa West Philippine Sea, nakaaalarma lalo ang presensiya ng mga Intsik sa balat ng lupa ng Pilipinas.

Naglipana na nga sila sa laganap na Online Gambling na umuokupa ng mga buong hotel, apartments, restaurants, pati dating eskuwelahan, at iyon nga, pati mga isla sa bibig ng Subic Bay ay gusto pa kunin.

Ito Ang Totoo:  hindi na dapat isyu ang pag-okupa ng mga Intsik sa dalawang isla dahil ibinasura na ng SBMA Board ang proposal ng kompanyang nakipagsabwatan sa mga Intsik, ang GFTG Property Holdings, Inc. sa pamamagitan ng pagbebenta ng mayoryang shares sa Sanya ng China.

Noong Mayo 19, 2019 naganap ang pagbasura na, ayon kay Eisma, ay sa kadahilanang lalabag sa konstitusyon ang panukalang proyekto ng GFTG Property Holdings Corp.

Naghahanap na lang daw ang SBMA ngayon ng ibang investor na magdi-develop sa naturang mga isla bilang tourist attraction.