Philippines says fishermen hurt, boats damaged by China in South China Sea

The recent incident in the South China Sea, where China's coast guard reportedly drove away multiple Philippine vessels, causing alleged injuries to fishermen and damage to boats, is a stark reminder of the simmering tensions and complex territorial disputes in one of the world's most strategically vital waterways. This event, where China claimed it took 'control measures', underscores the persistent challenge to international law and regional stability.

To truly grasp the gravity of this situation, we must delve into its historical and geopolitical context. The South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea, rich in natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas, and abundant fishing grounds. More importantly, it hosts some of the busiest shipping lanes globally, through which an estimated one-third of global maritime trade, including a significant portion of India's trade, passes. The dispute involves multiple claimant states – China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan – all asserting sovereignty over various islands, reefs, and maritime features, and the associated exclusive economic zones (EEZs).

China's expansive claim, encapsulated by its 'nine-dash line', covers nearly 90% of the South China Sea, extending hundreds of miles south from its Hainan island, and overlapping with the EEZs of several other countries. This claim is largely based on historical maps and perceived usage, which is often contested by international law. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), signed in 1982 and entered into force in 1994, provides the legal framework for maritime activities and territorial claims. It defines concepts like territorial waters, contiguous zones, and exclusive economic zones (EEZs), assigning sovereign rights for exploration and exploitation of resources within 200 nautical miles from a nation's baseline. China ratified UNCLOS, yet its nine-dash line claim largely contradicts its provisions.

A pivotal moment in this dispute occurred in 2016 when the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague issued a landmark ruling. The Philippines had initiated arbitration against China's claims, and the PCA unequivocally rejected China's historical claims over the South China Sea, stating that they had no legal basis under UNCLOS. The ruling also clarified that certain features claimed by China were not islands but rocks or low-tide elevations, thus not entitled to an EEZ. China, however, rejected this ruling, calling it 'null and void' and refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy, continuing its assertive actions in the region.

The key stakeholders in this ongoing drama are numerous. **China**, driven by economic interests (resources), strategic imperatives (maritime power projection, securing trade routes), and nationalistic pride, seeks to solidify its control over the region. **The Philippines**, a sovereign nation, aims to protect its territorial integrity, its fishermen's livelihoods, and its sovereign rights within its EEZ, often invoking international law and its alliance with the United States. **Other ASEAN claimants** (Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei) share similar concerns, though their responses vary. **The United States**, while not a claimant, asserts its interest in freedom of navigation and overflight, upholding international law, and supporting its regional allies, frequently conducting 'Freedom of Navigation Operations' (FONOPs) through the disputed waters. **ASEAN** as a bloc attempts to manage the dispute through diplomatic means, striving for a Code of Conduct (COC) to prevent further escalation, though progress has been slow.

For **India**, this dispute holds significant implications. Firstly, India's 'Act East Policy' emphasizes deeper engagement with Southeast Asian nations, both economically and strategically. Stable and secure maritime commons are crucial for this policy's success. Secondly, a substantial portion of India's international trade, including energy imports, transits through the South China Sea. Any disruption, militarization, or restriction of navigation in these waters directly impacts India's economic security. Thirdly, India has energy interests in the region, with ONGC Videsh (OVL) having explored for oil and gas in areas claimed by Vietnam. Finally, India is a strong proponent of a rules-based international order and adherence to UNCLOS. China's disregard for the 2016 PCA ruling and its continued assertiveness pose a challenge to these principles, which India champions globally.

While India's Constitution does not directly address international maritime disputes, its foreign policy is guided by principles enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly **Article 51**, which mandates the State to 'promote international peace and security', 'maintain just and honourable relations between nations', 'foster respect for international law and treaty obligations', and 'encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration'. India's consistent stand on the South China Sea issue reflects these constitutional directives, advocating for peaceful resolution in accordance with UNCLOS.

Looking ahead, the future implications are concerning. The continued assertiveness by China, met with resistance from the Philippines and bolstered by support from allies like the US, risks further escalation. Incidents like the recent one could become more frequent, increasing the chances of miscalculation or accidental conflict. This could destabilize the entire Indo-Pacific region, impact global supply chains, and undermine the credibility of international law. The diplomatic efforts to finalize a Code of Conduct remain critical, but their effectiveness hinges on the political will of all parties. India, as a significant maritime power and advocate for a free and open Indo-Pacific, will continue to monitor these developments closely, engaging with regional partners and upholding the principles of international law to ensure maritime security and stability.