lawyer, as the sole arbitrator. This is ‘one of the most influential precedents dealing with island territorial conflicts.’
The Philippine view was premised on the geographic contiguity of the island to the Philippines; the discovery by Spain; and its inclusion in the 1989 Treaty of Paris. Netherlands, on the other hand, invoked its claim of the landmass by the continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty based on pacts signed as early as 1677 with the ruling princes of adjacent regions.
The arbitral court said the U.S. stance of contiguity and discovery was not proved and if Spain had a title to show, it is still under contest. The Netherlands, meanwhile, held that its possession and exercise of sovereignty of the atoll is an extension of the accords the East India Company, a Dutch company, signed with the indigenous ruler to even out the Dutch rule over the territory.
The arbitrator also pointed out that if there were discordant claims between the Dutch and the Spaniards, there would have been conflict, adding that an actual title, even if existent, cannot supplant the sovereignty exercised by the Dutch over the island ‘from 1677 or even prior to 1648,’ a territorial claim that was not challenged.