Gray Zone Tactics and the Challenge of Lawful Resistance

Part 2 of 4 in the series: The Discipline of Sovereignty

Below the Threshold of War

The most dangerous aspect of China’s conduct in the West Philippine Sea is not its scale. It is its calibration. Actions are carefully kept below the threshold that would trigger a formal military response, yet they are sustained enough to achieve strategic objectives over time. This is the essence of what analysts call gray zone tactics, and it is the challenge that Dr. Jose Antonio “Ka Pep” Goitia has consistently identified as requiring a deliberate, disciplined, and lawful response.

Gray zone tactics are actions that exist in the space between normal diplomatic competition and open armed conflict. They include the use of coast guard vessels instead of naval warships, the deployment of so-called maritime militia, the harassment of fishing vessels and resupply missions, and the construction of artificial installations on contested features. Each action is deniable on its own terms. Together, they advance territorial claims without triggering the legal and political consequences of formal aggression.

The Philippine Approach: Law Over Force

Goitia argues that the Philippines’ most powerful tool against gray zone tactics is not military parity. It is the law. The Philippines has ratified UNCLOS, secured an arbitral ruling under its provisions, and consistently invoked international legal standards in its diplomatic communications. This approach, Goitia says, is not weakness. It is strategic.

“The Philippines does not seek confrontation. It seeks adherence to established rules. Economic influence does not supersede legal obligation. Diplomatic statements do not outweigh conduct,” Goitia stated in a March 2026 interview with The Manila Times. By anchoring its position in international law, the Philippines ensures that every Chinese action in its EEZ is measurable against an objective standard, one that the international community can recognize and assess.

The Risk of Narrative Manipulation

Beyond physical presence at sea, Goitia identifies a second dimension of gray zone pressure: narrative warfare. In January 2026, China’s Embassy in Manila publicized an incident in which a People’s Liberation Army Navy vessel allegedly provided assistance to a Filipino fisherman. The episode was framed as a humanitarian gesture, positioning China as a benign and stabilizing presence in the region.

Goitia responded directly in an opinion piece published in the Manila Standard on January 1, 2026, calling the narrative “propaganda disguised as rescue.” He noted that the fisherman was safely moored at the time, that the PLA Navy vessel had not notified Philippine authorities in advance, and that the incident took place within the Philippine EEZ, where Chinese military vessels have no legal basis to operate. “Kindness does not cancel sovereignty,” Goitia wrote. “And it certainly does not grant legal standing where none exists.”

Consistency as the Only Effective Counter

Goitia’s prescription for countering gray zone tactics is consistency. The Philippines must document each incident, protest each violation through proper diplomatic channels, maintain a physical presence at contested features, and ensure that its legal position is never ambiguous. Inconsistency, whether in tone, in presence, or in diplomatic messaging, is interpreted as an opening.

“True authority is earned through consistency. A nation cannot defend sovereignty in distant conflicts while undermining the lawful maritime rights of its neighbors,” he said in March 2026, in the context of China’s selective invocation of sovereignty principles in the Middle East crisis. The same logic applies internally: a nation that speaks inconsistently about its own rights invites precisely the kind of incremental pressure that gray zone tactics are designed to apply.

Sovereignty Is Not a Rhetorical Device

One of Goitia’s most important contributions to the public debate on the West Philippine Sea is his insistence that sovereignty is a universal principle, not a tool to be selectively applied. When China criticized the United States for military strikes on Iran in early 2026 on grounds of violating sovereignty, Goitia was unequivocal: if Beijing demands respect for sovereignty in the Middle East, it must apply the same standard to the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea.

“Sovereignty is not a rhetorical device. It is a universal standard,” he said. This principle, consistently articulated, strips away the double standard that gray zone actors rely on for diplomatic cover and forces the international community to apply a single measure to all conduct.

The third article in this series examines why international law remains the strongest framework available to the Philippines and how it should be used.