Laporkan Masalah

Delimitasi Batas Maritim di Laut Cina Selatan dengan Mempertimbangkan Keberadaan Fitur Maritim (Studi Kasus: Perairan Spratly Islands)

RAKHADITO EDRA F, I Made Andi Arsana, S.T., M.E., Ph.D.

2021 | Skripsi | S1 TEKNIK GEODESI

Tidak sedikit negara yang ingin menguasai bagian dari Laut Cina Selatan, salah satunya bagian perairan Spratly Islands. Sengketa di gugus kepulauan ini melibatkan 6 negara yaitu Republik Rakyat Tiongkok, Vietnam, Filipina, Taiwan, Malaysia, dan Brunei Darussalam. Dokumen resmi yang menyatakan sengketa Laut Cina Selatan dimulai saat Republik Rakyat Tiongkok mengirimkan nota protes kepada Malaysia dan Vietnam pada tahun 2009 kepada Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa (United Nations) mengenai perjanjian landas kontinen antar kedua negara tersebut. Di dalam nota protes tersebut, Republik Rakyat Tiongkok mencantumkan sebuah peta dengan sembilan garis putus putus atau dikenal dengan sebutan nine dash line. Pada tahun 2013, Filipina mengajukan gugatan ke Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) atas penempatan personel militer dan pembuatan pulau reklamasi oleh Republik Rakyat Tiongkok di perairan Spratly Islands. Meskipun Republik Rakyat Tiongkok tidak merespon Filipina atas gugatan tersebut, pengadilan tetap melanjutkan proses persidangan. PCA memberikan keputusan akhir di Den Haag tanggal 12 Juli 2016 dengan kesimpulan bahwa prinsip nine dash line yang dipegang oleh Republik Rakyat Tiongkok melanggar ketentuan yang ada di United Nation of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Pada kegiatan aplikatif ini, diberikan dua opsi terkait delimitasi di Laut Cina Selatan khususnya pada perairan Spratly Islands. Opsi pertama yaitu delimitasi zona maritim dengan mempertimbangkan keberadaan fitur maritim menggunakan acuan kasus yang serupa seperti Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia). Yakni pembuatan zona teritorial di luar daratan utama sebuah negara atas dasar prinsip effectivité. Dan opsi kedua yaitu delimitasi zona maritim dengan mengacu kepada klaim Republik Rakyat Tiongkok di nota verbal nomor CML/17/2009 dan CML/18/2009 atau dapat disebut sebagai wilayah nine dash line. Hasil dari kegiatan aplikatif ini adalah peta opsi kepemilikan fitur maritim di perairan Spratly Islands beserta zona teritorial di sekelilingnya. Terdapat dua opsi delimitasi yaitu opsi pertama dengan mempertimbangkan keberadaan fitur maritim yang ditempati oleh masing-masing negara dan opsi kedua yaitu simulasi pembuatan zona nine dash line. Opsi pertama berdampak pada zona maritim Malaysia dan Filipina yang menyebabkan ZEE Malaysia berkurang seluas 6.494,88 km2 dan ZEE Filipina berkurang seluas 8.084,9 km2. Namun terdapat penambahan luas laut teritorial keseluruhan negara yang bersengketa kecuali Indonesia. Laut teritorial Brunei Darussalam bertambah seluas 1.696,6 km2, laut teritorial Malaysia bertambah seluas 5.648,73 km2, laut teritorial Filipina bertambah seluas 10.285.44 km2, laut teritorial Taiwan bertambah seluas 690.93 km2, laut teritorial Republik Rakyat Tiongkok bertambah seluas 5.077.89 km2, dan laut teritorial Vietnam bertambah seluas 22.571.67 km2. Pada opsi kedua, keberadaan fitur maritim seluruhnya terdapat di dalam zona nine dash line.

Some countries want to control parts of the South China Sea, one of which is on the Spratly Islands water. The dispute in this archipelago involves six countries, the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei Darussalam. The official document stating the South China Sea dispute began when the People's Republic of China sent a verbal note to Malaysia and Vietnam in 2009 to the United Nations (UN) regarding the continental shelf agreement between the two countries. In the verbal note, the People's Republic of China attached a map with nine dotted lines, known as nine-dash lines. In 2013, the Philippines government filed a lawsuit to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) over the deployment of military personnel and the creation of a reclaimed island by the People's Republic of China in the waters of the Spratly Islands. Although the People's Republic of China did not respond to the Philippines for the lawsuit, it continued the trial process. The PCA gave a final decision in The Hague on July 12, 2016, concluding that the nine-dash line principle held by the People's Republic of China violated the provisions of the United Nations of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In this study, two delimitation options are given. The first option is delimitation by considering maritime features citing a similar case from Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia). In this option, the territorial zone is generated outside the country's mainland based on practical principles. Furthermore, the second option is the delimitation of the maritime zone by referring to the claims of the People's Republic of China in the verbal notes number CML/17/2009 and CML/18/2009, or it can be called the nine-dash line area. This study output is a map of options for the ownership of maritime features in the Spratly Islands waters and the territorial zones around them. There are two delimitation options, the first option by considering maritime features occupied by each country and the second option simulating a nine-dash line zone. The first option impacts the maritime zones of Malaysia and the Philippines, which causes Malaysia's EEZ to be reduced by 6,494.88 km2, and the Philippine EEZ to be reduced by 8,084.9 km2. However, there is an increase in the territorial sea area for all countries in dispute except Indonesia. The territorial sea of Brunei Darussalam expanded by 1,696.6 km2, the territorial sea of Malaysia expanded by 5,648.73 km2, the territorial sea of the Philippines expanded by 10,285.44 km2, the territorial sea of Taiwan expanded by 690.93 km2, the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China expanded to an area of 5,077.89 km2. Vietnam's territorial sea expanded by 22,571.67 km2. In the second option, the overall presence of maritime features is within the nine-dash line zone.

Kata Kunci : Laut Cina Selatan, Delimitasi, Sengketa, Spratly Islands, Laut Teritorial, Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif

  1. S1-2021-415148-abstract.pdf  
  2. S1-2021-415148-bibliography.pdf  
  3. S1-2021-415148-tableofcontent.pdf  
  4. S1-2021-415148-title.pdf