On 17 June 2024, personnel from the Chinese Coast Guard (CCG), armed with bladed weapons, surrounded and struck the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) vessels attempting to resupply the Philippines' outpost on the Second Thomas Shoal. This incident, involving attempts to impound PCG vessels and resulting in a Philippine Navy officer losing a thumb, marks a significant escalation in the standoff at the Shoal.

The South China Sea (SCS) is a volatile arena of overlapping territorial and maritime disputes, with strategic posturing by regional powers. China's recent provocations at the Second Thomas Shoal — harassing Filipino vessels in the Philippines' exclusive economic zone (EEZ) — underscore the critical role of 'lawfare' in contemporary maritime disputes. Lawfare enables smaller States to counterbalance China's formidable economic and military dominance. Recent applications of lawfare by the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia offer insights into their strategies and underscore broader implications for international law.

China's aggressive actions at Second Thomas Shoal highlight the ongoing power struggle in the SCS. These actions violate several provisions of UNCLOS. By blockading Philippine supply ships, constructing artificial structures, and using military vessels to intimidate, China undermines the Philippines' sovereign rights within its EEZ, impedes lawful navigation, and disrupts traditional fishing rights. These actions contravene UNCLOS articles on sovereign rights (Article 56), freedom of navigation (Article 87), prohibition of force (Article 301), and environmental protection (Article 192). Additionally, China's artificial islands do not alter the Philippines' EEZ rights, further highlighting the illegitimacy of Beijing's maritime claims and actions. These confrontations emphasise the strategic importance of lawfare for smaller states like the Philippines and other littoral States in defending their maritime rights and challenging China's hegemonic aspirations.

Despite Beijing's non-recognition, the Philippines' 2016 arbitration case against China was pivotal in its ‘lawfare’ strategy, invalidating China's ‘Nine-Dash Line’ claims and setting a significant legal precedent. This ruling reinforced the Philippines' sovereign rights and emboldened other claimant States to consider similar legal avenues.

Following recent Chinese aggressions at Second Thomas Shoal, the Philippines continues to leverage international law, filing diplomatic protests, and seeking support from global allies. Philippine National Security Adviser Eduardo Ano emphasized the country’s efforts to strengthen ties with like-minded nations and engage in sincere discussions to reduce tensions. Manila’s strategy, framed within UNCLOS, seeks to diplomatically counterbalance China's influence, and uphold a rules-based international order, illustrating how lawfare can be a powerful tool for smaller States to assert their rights against superior powers.

Vietnam also employs a strategic approach to lawfare, aligning its maritime claims with international law to position itself as a responsible international actor in the SCS disputes. This strategy includes issuing diplomatic notes, reaffirming sovereignty, and garnering regional support against China's assertiveness. In addition to lawfare, Vietnam has expanded its presence in the Spratly Islands, enhancing its position through island-building initiatives. This expansion of outposts in the Spratly Islands is another means for Vietnam to strengthen its position in navigating the complex geopolitics of the SCS, along with its participation in regional and international maritime forums.

Indonesia faces challenges in the SCS as China's claims overlap with those of its EEZ around the Natuna Islands. Its strategy includes diplomatic efforts urging China to respect the SCS arbitral award and questioning the legitimacy of Beijing's claims. Indonesia asserts its claims through diplomatic channels and military presence, exemplified by new bases on and near the Natuna Islands. However, Jakarta historically has downplayed its maritime dispute with China. Newly elected President Prabowo is expected to maintain Indonesia's current policy trajectory, focusing on confidence-building measures to lower tensions and promote regional development. Indonesia emphasises the importance of legal frameworks in resolving maritime disputes, employing an indirect approach to protect its interests without escalating tensions, demonstrating the strategic versatility of lawfare.

The Broader Implications of Lawfare

The strategic use of lawfare by the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia highlights international law’s role in maintaining stability and peace in contested maritime regions. Through legal mechanisms, these nations can challenge power imbalances and seek peaceful resolutions to disputes. Lawfare enables smaller states to mobilise international support, exert diplomatic pressure, and uphold a rules-based order.

However, lawfare has its challenges. The effectiveness of legal rulings often hinges on powerful states’ willingness to comply. China's rejection of the 2016 arbitration ruling illustrates the limitations of legal mechanisms amidst geopolitical realities. Despite this, pursuing legal avenues remains vital to broader strategies to uphold international law and maintain regional stability.

As tensions in the SCS persist, the importance of lawfare cannot be overstated. Recent actions of China at the Second Thomas Shoal exemplify the ongoing challenges and underscore the need for robust legal strategies to counter aggressive actions. Through lawfare, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia can assert their rights and pursue peaceful resolutions.

Lawfare exemplifies the power of international law in contemporary statecraft, enabling smaller states to challenge more powerful adversaries, assert sovereignty, and advocate for a rules-based international order. It is essential to highlight these strategies’ relevance in addressing current and future challenges in this critical maritime region. By highlighting the strategic use of lawfare, we enhance our understanding of its role in maintaining peace and security in one of the world's most contested maritime regions.

---

This article is part of the ‘Blue Security’ project led by La Trobe Asia, University of Western Australia Defence and Security Institute, Griffith Asia Institute, UNSW Canberra and the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy and Defence Dialogue (AP4D). Views expressed are solely of its author/s and not representative of the Maritime Exchange, the Australian Government, or any collaboration partner country government.

For a more in-depth discussion by these authors and others on this topic please see the latest issue of Blue Security: A Maritime Affairs Series titled ‘The use of ‘Lawfare’ in the South China Sea Disputes: Views from the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia’.