Maritime tensions are escalating in the South China Sea and other parts of the Indo-Pacific, where sovereignty claims intersect with power balances and alliances. In this environment where international legal instruments and military deterrence are intertwined, the border disputes between China and the Philippines in particular have turned into a multidimensional struggle that can be described as a "map and law war."
Background of the Legal Dispute
According to reports in Chinese media, Beijing relies on a historical and legal reading that the Philippines' land borders were determined during the Spanish and American colonial periods and fixed by subsequent international treaties. Citing a report by the Marine Strategy Institute under China's Ministry of Natural Resources, Xinhua news agency states that Manila began expanding its maritime jurisdiction claims from the 1970s through constitutional amendments, domestic legislation, and political declarations, including parts of the Huangyan (Scarborough) and Nansha (Spratly) islands in the South China Sea.
According to the report, these claims lack historical and legal basis, constitute an attempt to exceed the limits of international treaties, and threaten the international legal order and regional stability.
Central Dispute: The 2016 Arbitration Ruling
At the heart of the dispute between the two countries is the arbitration ruling announced in 2016. While the Philippines embraces this ruling as a legal reference, China categorically rejects it. According to an analysis by Asia Times, the ruling was designed not to end the dispute but to clarify how the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) should be applied. Although the tribunal rejected the legal basis of China's "nine-dash line" claim, it did not issue a final judgment on sovereignty or maritime boundary delimitation.
Nevertheless, according to Asia Times, the ruling has become a "legal framework" that the Philippines consistently uses in its maritime policy, strengthening its diplomatic position even without an enforcement mechanism. On the other hand, Chinese state newspaper Huan Qiu argues that the ruling lacks legal legitimacy, has been subjected to clear politicization, violates the principle of consent of the parties, and has further complicated the dispute rather than contributing to stability.
Regional Dynamics and China's Response
The bilateral dispute is expanding to include regional actors. Maritime boundary delimitation talks between Japan and the Philippines have drawn strong objections from China. According to China Daily, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning stated that these negotiations violate international law and touch upon China's sovereign rights, particularly in waters east of Taiwan island.
Li Xiaolu, an academic from the China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies at Wuhan University, emphasized that international law principles under UNCLOS require that bilateral maritime boundary delimitation must not prejudice the claims or rights of a third state, and described this step as an attempt to expand maritime claims beyond geographical and legal reality.
China's response was not limited to the legal realm. According to China Daily, Chinese coast guard vessels conducted patrols and scientific research activities in disputed waters that Beijing says are under its jurisdiction. Li Xiaolu said these activities fall within the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction under UNCLOS, including resource protection and navigation regulation. The same newspaper reported that Chinese Defense Ministry Spokesperson Zhang Xiaogang stated that if actions it describes as provocative continue, his country will take resolute and strong measures to protect its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.
The Philippines' Dual Strategy
The Philippines, for its part, combines adherence to the legal framework with a strategy of strengthening security partnerships. Asia Times notes that Manila uses the 2016 arbitration ruling as a "legal language" to garner international support, and that the ruling has become part of diplomatic discourse with partners like the US and Japan. The Philippines is also trying to expand its alliance base through bilateral defense cooperation agreements, which Beijing sees as an attempt to internationalize the dispute and draw external powers into the region.
According to Huan Qiu newspaper, this could further complicate rather than calm the regional environment. There is also a struggle over concepts and expressions. The newspaper wrote that the Philippines is trying to reframe the dispute by presenting itself as the victim, leveraging concepts like "freedom of navigation" and "rules-based order," while China emphasizes historical facts and the need to return to direct negotiations between the relevant parties.
This contrast, according to Asia Times' analysis, reflects the nature of the relationship between legal instruments and elements of power: while law alone does not definitively resolve disputes, it provides a framework used to legitimize policies and constrain the behavior of parties.
Assessments in the Chinese press indicate that the China-Philippines dispute has now moved beyond a traditional border conflict and turned into a multidimensional competition involving international law, field operations, alliance building, and narrative struggle. While Beijing focuses on refuting the legal legitimacy of Manila's claims and related initiatives, the Philippines seeks to establish the arbitration ruling as an international reference and strengthen its position through partnerships. The map and law war seems to be shaped not by military or legal superiority alone, but by the parties' capacity to transform this competition into a negotiation process that preserves regional stability.
