The South China Sea is one of the most heavily contested maritime regions on earth as it involves a myriad of overlapping territorial claims. More recently, there has been a growing escalation between the Philippines and China due to the fact that Chinese coast guard vessels have been aggressively blocking Philippine resupply missions, in particular at the Second Thomas Shoal. However, this conflict goes beyond territorial sovereignty given that it involves matters regarding the control of strategic sea lanes, the access and exploitation of the natural resources of the region such as fisheries, gas and oil, and the overall integrity of international maritime law. Hence, the ongoing tensions have highlighted major geopolitical issues that include the lack of enforcement mechanisms of international rulings, the gaps in regional security and decrease in international cooperation and coordination.
With regards to the relevant legal background of the issue and the current enforcement gap, it is paramount to highlight that the UNCLOS provides sufficient legal clarity concerning territorial disputes in the South China Sea, as proven by the 2016 arbitral ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This landmark legal victory supported the Philippine’s claims over its sovereign rights within its Exclusive Economic Zone and it voided China’s nine-dash line practices. Nevertheless, almost ten decades after the ruling, China continues to disregard the sentence, thus, undermining international law. The reality remains, that legal victories are merely symbolic without actual enforcement and the lack of political, economic and diplomatic measures against China, has further emboldened Beijing and discouraged other countries from bringing forth other claims. In order to achieve its geopolitical goals, China has been using a variety of tactics and strategic dynamics. For instance, it has employed so-called gray zone tactics which involve coast guard harassment, the construction of artificial islands and naval intimidation against the Philippines without open warfare. On the other hand, the Philippines has doubled down on its legal and diplomatic efforts by seeking broader international support while parallelly avoiding further escalation. However, these strategies are nearing their limits without a decisive and coordinated international response. Such a delicate situation calls for a number of pragmatic and multilateral solutions, given that there is a looming risk of escalation and the current international and diplomatic mechanisms are proving to be rather inadequate. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a recalibration of policy responses by regional actors and international stakeholders while avoiding an open confrontation.
Firstly, it is pivotal to improve and bolster coordination regarding international legal enforcement. This could be achieved by means of establishing an enforcement forum for the South China Sea, which would involve multiple stakeholders and have members such as ASEAN countries, Japan and Australia. The forum could carry out functions related to the coordination of legal messaging and maritime law strategies, recording and monitoring potential violations as well as preparing groundwork for future sanctions or legal disputes. Moreover, it is necessary to develop other measures that balance defense and confidence-building in the region. In that regard, the Philippines should aim to strengthen its defense partnerships with allies like the U.S., Japan and Australia while also pushing ASEAN to revive negotiations with China on a binding Code of Conduct. This would entail the creation of dispute resolution mechanisms, transparency rules for coast guard and militia activity and hotline systems to manage crises. Such measures could avoid polarisation while encouraging China to engage in multilateral frameworks. However, China’s advantage does not only lie in its military might but more importantly in its ability to control the region through non-military means. Therefore, the establishment of a multilateral maritime capacity fund, supported by G7 states and managed by ASEAN, could provide countries operating in the South China Sea like the Philippines, Vietnam, and others with better surveillance systems, patrol ships, and legal training to document and respond to violations without the need to resort to military escalation.
In conclusion, the South China Sea is not an isolated conflict zone but rather a mirror reflecting broader shifts in global power, legal contestation, and the need for institutional innovation. As the Philippines finds itself on the frontline of a legal and strategic struggle, the rest of the world must realise that passivity is no longer a neutral stance. Practical, coordinated, and legalistic approaches must be the answer, not only for the sake of regional peace, but for the credibility of the international system itself.
By The European Institute for International Relations
