The South China Sea remains one of the world’s most volatile flashpoints, where strategic ambition collides with the sovereignty of smaller states. At the heart of this struggle lies China’s sweeping “nine-dash line” claim, invalidated by the 2016 arbitral ruling but still enforced through island-building and “gray-zone” coercion. For years, the Philippines appeared the passive victim in this asymmetric contest, but it is now redefining its role, flexing middle power clout and reshaping the regional narrative.
The foundation of this transformation rests on law and diplomacy. The 2016 arbitral award provided Manila and other claimants with a powerful legal precedent, rejecting China’s historic claims and affirming sovereign rights under UNCLOS. Building on this, the Philippines has forged coalitions with partners such as the U.S., Australia, Japan, and Canada, rallying support from G7 nations and affirming its refusal to cede “one square inch” of territory.
At the operational level, Manila has embraced an “assertive transparency” strategy, documenting and publicizing every Chinese incursion. By exposing incidents, from water cannon attacks at Second Thomas Shoal to the presence of Chinese research ships in its waters, Manila has amplified its voice globally and harnessed strong domestic support. This approach, backed by surveys showing overwhelming Filipino approval, demonstrates a newfound resolve to stand firm.
The effects extend beyond sovereignty into economic and geopolitical realms. Manila has begun diversifying away from Chinese investments, courting Japan, South Korea, the U.S., and the EU for critical infrastructure projects. Regionally, it has cemented its place in mini-lateral alliances designed to uphold a free and open Indo-Pacific, exploiting China’s operational disadvantages against collective naval power.
Looking ahead, the future implications are profound. In the short term, the Philippines will continue strengthening its military through its $35 billion modernization program while relying on transparency to deter aggression. In the long term, its strategy could serve as a model for other middle powers, proving that law, alliances, and strategic communication can be as potent as military might. The outcome will shape not only the Philippines’ security, but also the credibility of international law and the stability of global trade routes.

The Legal and Diplomatic Foundation of Philippine Clout

The Philippines’ emergence as a middle power in the South China Sea dispute rests on two pillars: the strength of its legal position and the breadth of its diplomatic coalitions. Together, they have transformed Manila from a solitary claimant into a credible leader in the regional and global pushback against Beijing’s maritime expansionism.
The turning point in the Philippines’ legal strategy came in July 2016, when the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague delivered a landmark ruling that overwhelmingly favored Manila. On 14 out of 15 points, the tribunal invalidated China’s sweeping “nine-dash line” claim, ruling that it had no legal basis under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The ruling also classified features like Sandy Cay and Mischief Reef as low-tide elevations, not islands, meaning they could not generate their own EEZs.
The significance of this victory cannot be overstated. It gave the Philippines and by extension, the entire international community, a powerful legal precedent to challenge China’s maritime claims. As Paul Reichler, the lead lawyer for Manila’s team, emphasized: “The tribunal’s ruling not only benefits the Philippines, it also benefits other states bordering the South China Sea like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. If China’s nine-dash line is invalid as to the Philippines, it is equally invalid to those states and, indeed, the rest of the international community.” The award transformed Manila into a torchbearer for international law, equipping it with moral legitimacy and legal ammunition.
This case study also provided smaller states with a blueprint for how international law can be used to constrain larger powers. While China rejected the ruling outright, refusing to participate in the proceedings and calling the decision “null and void,” the award nonetheless tilted the balance of the narrative. For the Philippines, the ruling became not just a shield but a sword: a constant reminder that Beijing’s sweeping claims rest on shaky legal ground.
Legal strength alone, however, is insufficient without diplomatic backing. Recognizing this, Manila has strategically invested in alliances and partnerships to internationalize the dispute. Since 2016, the Philippines has intensified defense cooperation and conducted multilateral patrols and exercises with partners such as the United States, Australia, Japan, and Canada. These collaborations are not merely symbolic, they provide the Philippines with deterrent credibility while signaling to China that its actions are being closely monitored by a coalition of powerful states.

A case in point is the March 2025 G7 declaration, where the world’s leading democracies condemned China’s coercive behavior and reaffirmed their full support for UNCLOS. This outcome was not automatic, it was the result of sustained Philippine diplomacy and advocacy, showing Manila’s growing ability to rally international opinion. By framing its struggle as a defense of international law rather than a parochial territorial dispute, the Philippines has successfully turned its cause into a global concern.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has captured this balance between firmness and diplomacy in his repeated pledge not to cede “one square inch” of Philippine territory. At the same time, he has emphasized that Manila continues to seek a resolution through peaceful, diplomatic means. This dual-track approach, combining assertiveness with restraint—underscores the Philippines’ transformation into a credible middle power. It can stand firm against China while avoiding reckless escalation, drawing strength from the rule of law and the backing of a broad diplomatic coalition.

The “Assertive Transparency” Strategy

One of the most defining shifts in Philippine policy under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has been the embrace of “assertive transparency” as a tool of statecraft. Unlike the past practice of quietly protesting China’s incursions through backchannels, the Philippines has chosen to shine a global spotlight on every encounter, every provocation, and every violation of its sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea. The goal is not merely to document aggression, but to shape the narrative, rally international support, and make it politically costly for Beijing to continue its “gray-zone” campaign unchecked.

A. Proactive Documentation and Publicization

At the core of this strategy is a proactive effort to collect, release, and amplify evidence of Chinese activity in disputed waters. The Philippines has opened its operations to the press, invited media crews to embed on coast guard vessels, and established a communications campaign that ensures incidents are rapidly reported and disseminated worldwide. Instead of secrecy, Manila’s default posture has become exposed.
A striking example came in August 2025, when the Philippine government revealed that 20–22 Chinese research ships had entered its waters, a sharp rise compared to previous years. Rather than downplay the event, Manila made the incursion public and emphasized the scale and frequency of China’s presence. By doing so, it not only informed its own population but also elevated the issue to the international stage, forcing allies, partners, and neutral observers to take notice. This marked a sharp break from past administrations, which were often criticized for being muted in their responses.

B. Confrontations and Incidents

Nowhere has this strategy been more visible than at the Second Thomas Shoal, a flashpoint where the Philippines maintains its grounded warship, the BRP Sierra Madre, as a symbol of sovereignty. This aging vessel has become the site of repeated and dangerous confrontations with China. In late 2025, the standoffs escalated further: a Chinese coast guard vessel conducted water cannon drills, targeting Philippine resupply ships and damaging equipment. In another encounter, a collision between Chinese and Philippine vessels occurred, a reckless maneuver that underscored the risks of escalation.
The human cost has also become part of the narrative. During one clash, a Filipino serviceman lost a finger, a detail that the Philippine government deliberately highlighted to show the very real dangers its troops face on the frontlines. By releasing such information, Manila ensures that Beijing’s actions cannot be dismissed as mere “maritime exercises” or “routine patrols.” Instead, they are framed as violent, aggressive acts that put lives at risk and destabilize the region.
The transparency strategy also resonates strongly at home. A July 2024 survey revealed that 73% of Filipinos favored more assertive measures to defend national territory, including expanded naval patrols and increased troop presence in the West Philippine Sea. This overwhelming public support gives the Marcos administration the political cover to pursue a bolder stance, knowing it reflects the sentiment of a population determined not to yield ground. In this way, “assertive transparency” functions not only as a foreign policy instrument but also as a domestic tool to unify the nation around its sovereign claims.

Philippines READY to Face China’s NEW Challenge at Sandy Cay?

Economic and Geopolitical Effects

The Philippines’ evolving role in the South China Sea dispute is not only reshaping its security posture, it is also transforming its economic partnerships and geopolitical orientation. The confrontation with China has underscored the risks of overdependence on a single partner, compelling Manila to seek both economic diversification and deeper integration into a web of regional and global alliances.

A. Economic Diversification and Trade

For much of the past two decades, China has dominated as the Philippines’ top trading partner. In 2023, bilateral trade reached more than $52.4 billion, with Chinese exports flooding Philippine markets and Beijing presenting itself as a partner in major infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Yet beneath the surface, these ties have become a double-edged sword. Many of China’s promised investments have suffered from delays, cost overruns, or outright cancellations, leaving critical railways, airports, and energy projects in limbo. This unreliability has fueled growing skepticism in Manila about the long-term wisdom of leaning too heavily on Beijing.
In response, the Philippine government has sought to rebalance its economic portfolio by attracting investors from a broader range of partners. Japan, long the Philippines’ largest source of development assistance, has stepped in with financing for railway and subway systems. South Korea has pursued energy and port infrastructure projects. The United States and the European Union have also signaled increased interest, particularly in supporting clean energy, digital infrastructure, and strategic manufacturing. By cultivating this diverse set of economic partners, Manila is reducing its vulnerability to Chinese economic coercion, an increasingly likely tool in Beijing’s playbook whenever maritime tensions flare.

China FEARS Philippines’ Bold Transparency Strategy in the South China Sea

B. Geopolitical Realignment

Parallel to this economic shift is a geopolitical realignment that situates the Philippines more firmly in the camp of nations determined to maintain a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” In recent years, Manila has solidified its place in a growing network of mini-lateral security groupings, tight, issue-specific alliances that complement larger regional frameworks like ASEAN. The most notable of these involve the United States, Japan, and Australia, with whom the Philippines has conducted increasingly complex joint exercises and signed new defense cooperation agreements.
This multilateral approach enhances deterrence by creating a collective presence in contested waters, reducing the risk that any one state can be isolated or intimidated by Beijing’s tactics. As one analysis noted, China faces an “operational disadvantage” when confronting the combined naval and coast guard forces of archipelagic states such as the Philippines and Indonesia, especially when backed by larger powers like the U.S. The Philippines’ position along the first island chain magnifies this effect, making it a strategic hub in a coalition determined to check Chinese expansion.
In effect, Manila’s actions represent a deliberate recalibration of its external relations. While economic ties with China remain significant, the Philippines is making clear that its sovereignty and strategic autonomy cannot be held hostage to trade. By diversifying its economy and embedding itself within multilateral security frameworks, the Philippines is exercising genuine middle power clout, punching above its weight by leveraging both its geography and its diplomacy to shape the balance of power in the region.

China Says Philippines ‘Courts Outside Powers’ and ‘Causes Trouble’ in the South China Sea

Future Implications

The Philippines’ transformation from a perceived “small claimant” to an assertive middle power in the South China Sea dispute carries weighty implications not only for its own future, but also for the region and the international system. The choices made in Manila, whether to stay the course, scale back, or intensify its strategy, will ripple far beyond its shores, shaping the balance of power and the rules that govern maritime order.

A. For the Philippines

In the short term, Manila shows no signs of abandoning its current trajectory. The Marcos administration has doubled down on its policy of “assertive transparency,” ensuring that every Chinese provocation is documented, publicized, and shared widely to maximize international attention. At the same time, Manila is investing heavily in the material foundations of deterrence through Re-Horizon 3, a long-term $35 billion military modernization program that prioritizes new patrol vessels, coastal defense missile systems, and advanced aircraft. These twin pillars, information warfare and military upgrade, are designed to ensure that Philippine sovereignty is not only defended rhetorically but also backed by hard capabilities.
In the long term, however, the sustainability of this approach will depend on both domestic and external factors. A significant challenge lies in domestic political will: future administrations could scale back or even reverse this confrontational stance if they prioritize economic ties with China over sovereignty or succumb to political pressure. Equally important is the continuity of international support. Without the consistent backing of allies such as the U.S., Japan, and Australia, Manila risks standing alone in an asymmetric struggle against Beijing’s vast resources. Thus, while the Philippines has laid the groundwork for a bolder strategy, its endurance will hinge on maintaining both domestic unity and foreign partnerships.

Philippines Completes BRP Sierra Madre Resupply Despite China’s Blockade

B. For the Region and the World

In the short term, the danger of escalation remains acute. The frequency of incidents, ranging from collisions and sideswiping maneuvers to the use of water cannons and lasers, demonstrates just how thin the margin for error has become. Each encounter risks spiraling into a broader clash, especially with the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) looming in the background. Any miscalculation could “drag in” the United States, transforming what begins as a maritime standoff into a confrontation between great powers.
Looking to the long term, the Philippines’ approach may prove to be a template for other middle powers facing coercion by stronger adversaries. By combining legal authority (UNCLOS and the 2016 arbitral ruling) with strategic alliances and public exposure, Manila is crafting a model of resistance that relies less on raw military strength and more on legitimacy, coalition-building, and transparency. If successful, this strategy could embolden other nations, whether in Southeast Asia, Africa, or Eastern Europe, to leverage international law and multilateral support as tools of deterrence.
Finally, the conflict’s trajectory will shape the future of global norms and maritime law. The South China Sea is not just a regional dispute, it is a testing ground for the rules-based international order. If Beijing succeeds in sidelining UNCLOS and imposing its own interpretation of sovereignty, it would mark a serious blow to the credibility of international law. Conversely, if the Philippines and its allies can defend freedom of navigation and uphold the 2016 ruling, it would reaffirm the strength of collective action and set a precedent that the world’s busiest trade routes are governed not by power, but by law.