The utter difference in using either South China Sea (SCS) or West Philippine Sea (WPS) rests on the indisputable theory that there’s less of the Philippines in the former and more of China in the latter. After all, WPS is an ordinary reference to the eastern portion of the South China Sea on one end and a reference to the maritime areas on the western side of the Philippine archipelago on the other. It’s stripped of everything besides (i.e. sovereignty, maritime claim, etc.). Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 29, what constitutes WPS was officially adopted in 2012 albeit nothing in hitherto existing local maps confirms its existence, either.

One wonders what the geopolitical landscape six years after World War II was when the Mutual Defense Treaty was signed in 1951 between the United States and the Philippines — a commitment to defend each other in case of an armed attack on either in the Pacific. There has been neither a review nor a renegotiation on its relevance in the contemporary context. Is it relevant to present-day regional security dynamics vis-a-vis other security arrangements and an entirely altered geopolitical ecosystem (i.e. grey zone tactics)? Or, is it an ambiguous version of NATO in its inability to render an “automatic response mechanism” as a logical commitment to so-called mutual defense? As a treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is an instrument for shaping the legal framework for ocean governance and maritime security as it covers areas like “navigation, resource management, environmental protection.”

How effective is its dispute settlement mechanism in matters of maritime disputes and the impact of arbitral awards, if any? The development of more defined legal norms simply means that rules for activities in oceans and seas are enforceable. Yet for now, it renders itself a mere soft power and how good enough it can even bind treaty signatories is quite nebulous.

The MDT and the 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration have a common denominator, namely, the former involves the Philippines and the United States while the latter involves the Philippines and China. In both cases, the Philippines is central to the treaty as it is to the future of international law.

Thus, the tribunal ruled China’s “nine-dash line” lacked legal basis and favored the Philippines’ exclusive economic rights in a 200-mile zone. What other matters has the tribunal actually addressed over China’s actions? Have all or any conditions thereof been satisfactorily adhered to and complied with so far as China is concerned?

In the local scene, quite apart from AO 29, Republic Act 12064 aka the Philippine Maritime Zones Act and Republic Act 9522 aka the Baselines Law dovetailed to enforce state sovereignty, jurisdiction, dominion. However, could enforcement go beyond jurisdictional bounds or would such laws from another country of origin have any impact, more so effect, upon a foreign nation? Were not these legislated enactments largely and purely based on the concepts or theories set forth in the UNCLOS which China refused to recognize?

Meanwhile, China can proceed to operationalize its “grey zone tactics” (GZT) to its own comparative advantage as an emerging maritime power in this crucial region in its keen objective to tilt the balance of power in favor of Southeast Asia.

How well have the Philippine defense and military establishments undertaken countermeasures to mitigate their impact so far as their geopolitical interests are concerned? Is this tenability owing to the ambiguity of international law or because the “impact of the activities does not justify a response by governments?”

It’s important for government to understand that GZT is a “non-military domain that uses national resources to deliberately coerce other states.” It’s unthinkable that miscalculations were the handiwork of the present dispensation. Are we simply a case of “democracies which champion openness and transparency, yet are poor in the ‘dark arts’ of political warfare, which constitutes a form of masked aggression?”