[ad_1]
Dr. Gao said that after the incident, there were growing calls for the United States to prove its ability to be a reliable treaty ally, especially in the Philippines.
“Some of them want more tangible support from the United States, including military action against China. Not necessarily to strike China with force, but at least to show more strength than joint exercises. So I think the United States has been under pressure.”
At the same time, observers say Washington is well aware that China is likely to take action if the Philippines insists on its expanded continental shelf claims.
“For the Chinese government, this move is a blatant challenge to its so-called historical basis, the nine-dash line,” said Dr Huang of the Institute of Indo-Pacific Affairs.
Dr Koh said there was speculation that China was using the June 17 incident to express its displeasure with the Philippines, noting that the incident occurred two days after Manila submitted its claim to the United Nations.
“So this is a tricky situation for the United States because on the one hand, you have to show that you are a reliable ally by supporting this legal effort. At the same time, you also have to manage the situation.
“It’s a very complicated triangle between the United States, the Philippines and China.”
Obstacles to the Philippines’ claims
Still, maritime law experts stress that the United Nations is unlikely to take up the Philippines’ extended continental shelf claim, let alone actively consider it.
The key is that some countries – in this case China and Malaysia – asked the UN not to do this.
“Since the CLCS does not make recommendations on submissions involving disputed areas, it is unlikely to make recommendations on the restrictions sought by the Philippines,” Dr Schultheis said, referring to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which oversees such matters.
He explained that while the Philippines might be able to cite the 2016 arbitration ruling to rebut China’s objections, Malaysia’s protests complicate matters because Malaysia’s rejection is based on the fact that Manila’s claims are “projected using Malaysia’s baselines in Sabah.”
“The Philippines’ claim can therefore be seen as the Philippines asserting its territorial sovereignty over Sabah,” Dr Schultheis pointed out.
“Thus, the question of whether the 2016 arbitration award could potentially pave the way for the CLCS to consider the Philippines’ extended continental shelf delineation case is unlikely to be on the CLCS agenda or be actively considered.
“This is an example of how unresolved disputes between two ASEAN member states are hampering their engagement with China on the South China Sea issue.”
[ad_2]
Source link
