There’s been a rising chorus in the wake of the incident, especially within the Philippines, for the US to demonstrate its ability to be a reliable treaty ally, said Dr Koh.
“Some of them were hoping that the US would provide more tangible support, including military action against China. Not necessarily to strike China with force, but at least show much more than just conducting joint exercises. So because of that, I think the US has been coming under pressure.”
At the same time, Washington is clear-eyed that if the Philippines pushes its extended continental shelf claim, there is a real possibility of Chinese action, observers say.
“For the Chinese government, such a move is an outright challenge to its sweeping nine-dash line on a supposed historical basis,” said Dr Wong from the Institute for Indo-Pacific Affairs.
There was speculation that China was using the Jun 17 incident to express its displeasure towards the Philippines, said Dr Koh, pointing out that it took place just two days after Manila submitted its UN claim.
“So this is a tricky issue for the US because, on the one hand, you have to show yourself as a reliable ally by supporting this legal endeavour. At the same time, you have to manage the situation.
“This is a very complex, triangular relationship between the US, Philippines and China.”
HURDLES TO THE PHILIPPINES’ CLAIM
All that being said, maritime law experts highlight that the UN is unlikely to process the Philippines’ extended continental shelf submission, let alone actively consider the claim.
The crux is that there are countries – in this case, China and Malaysia – which have requested for the UN not to do so.
“As the CLCS does not make recommendations about submissions that concern disputed areas, the CLCS is unlikely to recommend the limits the Philippines is seeking,” said Dr Schultheiss, referring to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf that oversees such matters.
He explained that while the Philippines might be able to make a case against China’s objection by citing the 2016 arbitration ruling, Malaysia’s protest complicates matters as its rejection is due to Manila’s claim being “projected using baselines from Malaysia’s Sabah”.
“The Philippines’ submission can therefore be considered as the Philippines upholding its claim to territorial sovereignty over Sabah,” Dr Schultheiss noted.
“Therefore, the question of whether the arbitral award of 2016 potentially clears the way for the CLCS to consider the Philippines’ extended continental shelf submission is unlikely to reach the agenda or active consideration of the CLCS.
“This is thus an example of how unresolved disputes between two ASEAN members hamper their dealings with China in the South China Sea.”
