The increasing military assertiveness of China and the Philippines in the South China Sea is escalating the tension in this strategic resource-rich waterway. Over the past 20 years, China has been occupying reefs and atolls to the detriment of competing claimants, including the Philippines. Incidents between the two powers – notably, a Chinese coast guard ship blocking and firing water cannons at a Filipino supply vessel on August 5^th – raise concerns about the hostility between the two countries, and should thus prompt a pro-active response. The international community ought to mediate and overcome the possibility of further escalation.

More recently than the water cannon incident, on September 26^th Filipino divers cut a floating barrier Beijing installed on the shoal. The Philippine Coast Guard’s spokesman for the region, Commodore Jay Tarriela, claimed that the barrier “[…] hinders the conduct of fishing and livelihood activities of Filipino fisherfolk in B.D.M. [the Bajo de Masinloc, also known as the Scarborough Shoal], which is an integral part of the Philippine national territory.”

Beijing reacted strongly to the admission when the Philippine Coast Guard released footage of the barrier being cut, warning Manila “not to stir up trouble.” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin, referring to the shoal by its Chinese name, said that “China firmly upholds the sovereignty and maritime rights and interests of the Huangyan island.” However, as the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration had affirmed the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone claims to the region in 2016, “the Philippines will not back down,” Tarriela told C.N.N. Because China “might still return the floating barrier once again, they might still do shadowing and dangerous maneuvers,” the Philippines intends to maintain its presence in the sea.

Even though it is true that the shoal, following the 2016 Hague arbitration on the Philippines’ claims, can be considered as an integral part of the Philippine national territory, an event such as the barrier cutting is neither a rational nor peace-oriented way to handle this sovereignty conflict. Given that the South China Sea is one of Asia’s most controversial and disputed areas, the only way forward is to mediate between the two parties to establish a satisfactory solution for both.

The Philippines would likely argue that forcing negotiations would harm their interests. While negotiations should never be held to the detriment of the parties’ legitimate rights, sabotage actions like the barrier cutting will only make it more difficult to reach a comprehensive, peaceful solution.

In light of the clashes that we have been delineating, it is important to explain the content of the 2016 arbitration, to give context to the Philippines’ claims regarding China’s violations of international law. The arbitral tribunal adjudicating the Philippines’ case ruled in favor of the Philippines when it determined that major elements of China’s claims were unlawful. (China has maintained that the ruling was “null and void.”) It is important to underline that the Court’s statement was not on sovereignty, as Chinese reservations to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea precluded this possibility. Still, the Philippines managed to obtain a victory by focusing its case on the more limited terms of the legal status of disputed maritime features, rather than a determination on sovereignty.

To conclude, acrimonious clashes, like the barrier cutting and the water cannon incident which came before it, are not and cannot be the way forward. Clashes between Beijing and Manila would only exacerbate tensions, making arriving at a solution to the dispute more and more difficult and unpredictable. Instead, there is need first for a call of deterrence, then for co-operation among the two parties – along with the mediation of the international community, which so far has not taken a clear enough position in this context. Without mediation, indeed, peaceful relations in the South China Sea will be far more difficult to achieve. This is why international organizations, notably the U.N., need to take a more pro-active approach in the matter.