Introduction

The next battle for the West Philippine Sea may not begin with ships or soldiers, but with algorithms. As states race to dominate not only maritime lanes but the data that governs them, diplomacy faces a new question: how do we defend sovereignty in the age of artificial intelligence?

Last week, I attended a high-level policy forum on Indo-Pacific maritime security hosted by the Stratbase ADR Institute and the French Embassy in Manila. The event, attended by experts including Professor Victor Andres Manhit, Ambassador Marie Fontanel, Commodore Jay Tariella, and more, revealed a profound shift in strategic priorities. As Commander Tariella warned, “investing in education and professional development is vital in addressing emerging threats such as cyber and hybrid warfare driven by AI” (Tariella, personal communication, October 2025).

His words encapsulate the dilemma confronting modern diplomacy: how can nations balance innovation with restraint as artificial intelligence reshapes military and maritime strategy? Globally, policymakers increasingly recognize that the next frontiers of influence will not be written in treaties, but in code.

I. From Ships to Systems

Professor Manhit observed that aggression in the Indo-Pacific is intensifying through the “weaponization of the environment” (Manhit, personal communication, October 2025), a concept that now extends into the digital domain. China’s deployment of grey-zone tactics, maritime swarming, laser targeting, and algorithmic surveillance illustrates how coercion can operate below the threshold of war while undermining sovereignty (Yaacob, 2024).

Scholars describe this shift as “algorithmic deterrence,” the use of AI systems to exert strategic pressure without open conflict (RAND Corporation, 2024). Kula and Çelebi (2025) show that autonomous maritime vehicles and AI-supported platforms, while expanding operational reach, also introduce new vulnerabilities. Jirak et al. (2025) emphasize that without explainable and transparent decision systems, accountability at sea dissolves. Together, these insights reveal that the same technologies that can defend sovereignty can also erode it.

For the Philippines, this dynamic is decisive. The 2016 Hague Tribunal ruling reaffirmed the Philippines’ sovereign rights under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), yet those legal borders risk becoming obsolete in a battlespace defined by information superiority. To preserve legitimacy, the Philippines must integrate algorithmic awareness into both its naval strategy and its diplomacy.

II. Diplomacy in the Age of Algorithms

Ambassador Fontanel’s question, “What kind of Indo-Pacific do we want to live in?” demands a technological as well as a moral answer (Fontanel, personal communication, October 2025). The Philippines and France have jointly called for inclusive maritime governance rooted in international law and sustainability (ADR Institute, 2025; PhilBiz News, 2025). Yet, these principles must now extend to the regulation of emerging technologies.

China’s grey-zone playbook, combining cyber intrusion, disinformation, and AI-driven surveillance, tests Philippine resilience daily. In response, the Philippines has begun to modernize its capabilities, deploying domain-awareness systems and expanding defense partnerships with Japan, the United States, and Australia (PhilStar, 2024; DFA, 2025).

Viewed through a realist lens, AI is the newest instrument in the balance of power, a means to deter and to dominate. Yet, through a liberal lens, it offers a bridge for cooperation. Shared AI-enabled maritime data could promote transparency among ASEAN states, reduce the risk of miscalculation and build confidence in contested waters.

Japan’s cautious model is instructive. As Tomida (2025) notes, Tokyo’s Ministry of Defense has advanced AI adoption “steadily but cautiously,” recognizing both the strategic utility and ethical hazards of autonomous systems. The Philippines should emulate this prudence: developing capability without surrendering control.

III. Blue Economy, Capacity, and Ethical Technology

Assistant Secretary Guzman highlighted that defending the West Philippine Sea also means safeguarding livelihoods (Guzman, personal communication, October 2025). The blue economy, fisheries, coastal resources, and maritime biodiversity depend on stable governance. AI can be a powerful ally here. Predictive analytics can monitor illegal fishing, track coral degradation, and optimize resource management. In this sense, data becomes diplomacy, where shared environmental stewardship builds soft power and mutual trust.

However, ethical guardrails are essential. Ardiansyah (2025) warns that lethal autonomous systems risk violating humanitarian law once human oversight is removed. Sygaco (2025) shows that the Philippines’ position on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems prioritizes human accountability. This aligns with global norms under the EU’s AI Act (2025), which mandates transparency and risk assessment.

Education is therefore central. Commander Tariella’s call for training reflects a national imperative: without AI-literate diplomats, analysts, and seafarers, technology will outpace governance. The Department of Information and Communications Technology’s AI Roadmap 2023 already recognizes this gap, urging a “whole-of-nation” approach to digital upskilling (DICT, 2023).

IV. The Regional and Global Context

Across the Indo-Pacific, states are institutionalizing AI diplomacy. Japan’s Defense AI Strategy and the EU AI Act set transparency benchmarks that could inspire ASEAN’s own frameworks. The ASEAN Digital Masterplan 2025 underscores the need for ethical and interoperable AI systems but remains aspirational in practice (ASEAN, 2025).

The United States and its allies increasingly emphasize responsible innovation. RAND (2024) argues that integrating explainable AI into maritime situational awareness enhances both deterrence and cooperation. This mirrors France’s advocacy for dual-use technology guided by democratic norms.

For the Philippines, bridging these initiatives requires diplomatic agility. The Department of Foreign Affairs’ 2025 Indo-Pacific Strategy highlights “technological capacity-building” as a core pillar of foreign policy (DFA, 2025). The Philippines’ challenge is to translate such commitments into operational frameworks, joint laboratories, shared training, and regional AI governance pacts.

V. A Call for Maritime-AI Diplomacy

In the West Philippine Sea, the next confrontation may not begin with a salvo or a flag-raising. It might start with a manipulated satellite image, a drone tracking route predictions of Filipino vessels, or a cyber-jammed communication relay. When conflict becomes as much an algorithm as artillery, the Philippines’ diplomatic strategy must evolve accordingly.

To secure both sovereignty and stability, the Philippines should:

1. Modernize maritime diplomacy by embedding AI literacy into foreign policy and defense education.

2. Institutionalize technology partnerships, particularly with France, Japan, and ASEAN neighbours, to enhance domain awareness and ethical governance; and

3. Champion an ethical-AI narrative where transparency, human oversight, and environmental responsibility underpin maritime security.

The 2016 Hague ruling reaffirmed Philippine sovereignty; the next decade must reaffirm Philippine relevance. A digitally literate diplomacy, rooted in ethics, strategy, and cooperation, can turn the region’s contested waters into a proving ground for responsible innovation.

Conclusion

The age of maritime diplomacy is being rewritten in code, and the Philippines stands at the frontlines. Whether artificial intelligence becomes our strongest ally or our most sophisticated adversary will depend on the choices we make today, how we teach it, how we govern it, and how we remember that the soul of diplomacy is still human. The next battle for the West Philippine Sea may begin with algorithms, but it will end, for better or worse, in the hands of those who govern them.