Was that a rightful occupation? As explained above, the Batan Islands were not "no man's land," but should be considered as belong to Japan which, however, never had occupied them. It seems the US thus had no right to occupy them based on the claim that the islands were no man's land. The US occupation was tantamount to invasion.
By unilaterally extending Philippine territory from the 20th parallel to the 21st parallel without prior negotiations with Taiwan, the "Republic Act No. 3046: Act to define the baseline of the territorial sea of the Philippines" promulgated by the Philippine government on June 17, 1961 clearly conflicted with the Treaty of Paris between the US and Spain.
Regardless, from the perspective of international law, the arrangement concerning the Batan Islands set up by the US and Spain in treaty form in 1898 confirmed that the islands were part of the territory of Taiwan, which at the time was under Japanese control. An international treaty should hold more binding power than the unclear 1895 agreement between Spain and Japan.
The Philippines' unilateral action in 1961 cannot invalidate the 1898 Paris Treaty between the US and Spain, because that treaty involves the territory of a third party. The Philippines cannot unilaterally define its northern border without consultations with that third party. From a juridical perspective, the legitimacy of the Philippine occupation of the Batan Islands is questionable.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor of history at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
RSS