Double-edged sword

The recent enactment of two landmark laws on maritime zones and archipelagic sea lanes by President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. holds significant implications for the Philippines’ sovereignty, international relations, and security, especially in the context of the West Philippine Sea (WPS) disputes.

These laws are like a double-edged sword that could strengthen the country’s legal position on its maritime entitlements but may also provoke complex responses from neighboring countries, particularly China.

Definitely, these laws provide a clear legal basis for the Philippines to assert its sovereign rights over its maritime zones, as defined by international conventions, notably the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The new legal framework reinforces the Philippines’ claims over its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, establishing clearer jurisdiction over fishing rights, natural resources, and marine environmental protection.

By codifying its maritime boundaries and archipelagic sea lanes, the Philippines bolsters its legal stance in the disputed waterway. The laws align with the 2016 arbitral ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which invalidated China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claims.

This legislation could serve as a legal backbone for defending the country’s entitlements, providing a more robust foundation in potential future negotiations or disputes.

Defining archipelagic sea lanes allows for regulated navigation, providing designated routes for foreign vessels and balancing national security with the right of innocent passage. This measure could improve relations with maritime powers such as the United States, Japan, and Australia by upholding the principle of freedom of navigation — a concern these nations share amid China’s militarization of the South China Sea.

The laws could also open up opportunities for economic development by protecting access to resources like fish stocks and underwater minerals. By securing its maritime boundaries, the Philippines can better manage and utilize its natural resources, potentially attracting foreign investment and fostering sustainable economic growth.

One major drawback of the new laws, however, is the risk of increased friction with China. Despite the legal merits of the laws, China continues to assert its claims over the entire South China Sea.

The passage of these laws could be seen by Beijing as a provocation, prompting stronger resistance to Philippine patrols or enforcement activities. This escalation could lead to a rise in confrontations, particularly in contested areas like the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal.

Enforcing these new maritime laws will likewise require additional resources for the Philippine Coast Guard and Navy. The country may need to boost its military presence in its EEZ and develop better monitoring systems to defend its maritime zones effectively. This could place a significant financial burden on an already stretched defense budget, diverting resources from other critical social and economic needs.

Some Southeast Asian nations, like Vietnam and Malaysia, have overlapping claims in the South China Sea. Although the laws clarify the Philippines’ position, they might not fully align with other claimants’ interests.

This could complicate efforts to form a united front within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on maritime security and the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.

The new maritime laws will likely have mixed repercussions on the Philippines’ international relations. The country’s strategic alignment with Western powers, particularly the United States, may be strengthened as these nations share an interest in upholding international maritime law and ensuring freedom of navigation.

Consequently, this alignment could attract more defense and economic support from allies, which would bolster the Philippines’ security in the WPS.

However, the laws could also intensify regional tensions. China has historically resisted any legal framework that counters its South China Sea claims. If the Philippines enforces these laws assertively, it could result in more frequent standoffs between Philippine and Chinese forces, particularly around fishing grounds and disputed islands. This tension might necessitate delicate diplomatic maneuvering to avoid outright conflict.

While the new laws will bolster the country’s sovereignty and align with international law, they also carry the risk of heightening tensions with China.

The Philippines will therefore need to balance assertiveness with diplomacy to manage relations with regional neighbors and global powers effectively.