New 'maritime laws' or Marcos' miscalculations?

Editor's note: Hu Xin, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is an assistant research fellow at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, China. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On November 8, Philippine President Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos signed two "laws" under the guise of implementing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration ruling to give them a veneer of legality.

The two so-called laws are the "Philippine Maritime Zones Act" and the "Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act."

In response, China's Foreign Affairs Ministry condemned the infringement of China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. In a statement, the ministry reaffirmed the legitimacy of China's territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea and pointed out that it is supported by both history and international law.

China also made stern representations to the Philippine ambassador to China and urged the Philippines to immediately halt any unilateral actions that complicate and escalate the situation in the South China Sea. The tacit warning is that if the Philippines persists in undermining China's legitimate rights and interests, China will take firm countermeasures.

The first mistake: Manipulating domestic legislation to prop up an illogical ruling

The "Philippine Maritime Zones Act" illegally includes the Chinese island Huangyan Dao and some islands and reefs of the Nansha Islands, or Nansha Qundao, into the Philippine maritime zone, which violates China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea. It also violates the international treaties on the scope of the Philippines' territory, such as the 1898 Treaty of Paris and the 1900 Treaty of Washington.

The "Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act" essentially establishes three channels for the passage of foreign aircraft and ships, aiming to restrict them to its designated archipelago channels. It says foreign ships and aircraft that violate the UNCLOS and infringe upon the sovereignty and rights of the Philippines shall not be allowed to exercise the right of passage through these sea lanes. And it gives itself the authority to decide which vehicles should be allowed and which not, with the Philippine Coast Guard being the enforcer of the decision. The actual purpose is to monitor the passing ships under the guide of following international law.

In addition to restricting the navigation rights of other countries, the "Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act" is one-sided and a selective distortion of Article 53 of the UNCLOS, which states that "an archipelagic state may designate sea lanes ..., suitable for the continuous and expeditious passage of foreign ships ... through ... its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea. ... All ships ... enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes ... [which] include all normal passage routes used as routes for international navigation … through archipelagic waters." The Philippines is trying to use domestic law to overstep the authority of international law and its “laws” are not binding on other countries.

The two "laws" actually expose the Philippines' ambition to expand its territory. They are an important link in the chain of the Philippines' "legalization" of its territorial and maritime rights claims. The Philippines and some other countries regard the South China Sea Arbitration ruling, which disregards basic facts and violates the basic principles of international law, as a guideline. On the basis of this erroneous foundation, they are seeking to strengthen and solidify the illegal award through domestic legislation.

The second mistake: Marcos' carefully designed "loyalty" to the U.S. is futile

When the results of the U.S. presidential election came out, indicating a "Donald Trump 2.0 era" ahead, Marcos not only sent a message of congratulations to the U.S. president-elect but also fawned on him on his personal social media account, saying he knew Trump's strong leadership would bring a "better future for all." Just one day later, the two maritime bills were signed in the hope it would be regarded by Trump as an act of allegiance and provoke China.

The precise timing is no coincidence but a careful design by the Philippines. In fact, these two bills had been brewing for many years, getting repeatedly reviewed and revised. Finally, they were approved by Congress in early October and sent to the president's desk for his final signature.

According to the domestic legislative procedure of the Philippines, the president can sign or express his opinion on a bill within 30 days after it is submitted for his review. Even if the president does not sign it or express his opinion, the bill will be automatically passed after the 30-day period. Therefore the high-profile signing ceremony for the bills seems deliberate.

After Marcos came to power, he deviated from the neutral policy of his predecessor Rodrigo Duterte and threw himself into the arms of the United States, turning the Philippines into a strategic tool for the United States to contain China. The Philippines is in the process of losing its policy autonomy and becoming a pawn of the U.S. to maintain its hegemony.

The third mistake: The plot to fish in troubled waters in the South China Sea will come to nothing

The two "acts" are part of a series of strategies by the Philippines to deal with China over the South China Sea issue, including cognitive warfare, legal warfare, and public opinion warfare. All these efforts serve the purpose of expanding the Philippines' influence in the South China Sea. Through these "legislative" measures, the Philippines will create more conflict in the foreseeable future, stirring up tension in the South China Sea.

However, the countries in the region are well aware of the situation. The lukewarm reception given to Marcos' remarks on South China Sea issues during the recent ASEAN meetings and Philippine Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro's proposal to strengthen Southeast Asian military cooperation and establish a "Southeast Asian NATO" security alliance is a reflection of the regional consensus that peace and stability in the South China Sea are the priorities for the region.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)