The Golden Age of White Hulls: Deciphering the Philippines’ Maritime Diplomatic Strategies in the South China Sea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article addresses a significant issue, why the new President of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has elected to employ the Philippine Coast Guard to counter China's grey zone operations of harassment and intimidation of Philippine military, law enforcement and fishing vessels. While the basic structure of the manuscript is sound and logical, the organisation of your analysis needs revision (see below for comments on English language expression). Note in your conclusion (lines 492-493) you write, "How are white hulls being used as a diplomatic tool to project power at sea?" You need to clarify what you mean by maritime diplomacy and how it differs from maritime law enforcement and you need to clarify how the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) differs from a maritime paramilitary agency. You also need to explain the puzzle you pose in the introduction by clarifying how the constabulary duties of the Philippines Coast Guard differ from naval power projection.
You need to explain that China's maritime militia is an armed paramilitary group and that many so-called China's fishing vessels in Philippines waters are not engaged in fishing. They are "maritime squatters" occupying Filipino historic fishing grounds to assert Chinese claims to sovereignty over the waters.
Minor point: line 30 - The Permanent Court of Arbitration did not decide the case of the Philippines -v- China. It was the registry of the Arbitral Tribunal set up under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Line 310 - What currency does 6.7 billion refer to? Pesos or US dollars?
In order to be publishable, English language expression needs substantial editing and improvement. You need to shorten long run-on sentences. You need an editor to assist with proper word choice and verb tense.
You use the term sovereignty when "sovereign jurisdiction" (over resources in the Philippines' Exclusive Economic Zone) is the correct term.
Author Response
Please see the attachment (highlighted in yellow)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1Focus on strengthening coordination multilaterally and on international issues
2Focus on multilateral strategic dialogues that have gained prominence in recent years: the Quad, and the West Asian Quad or I2U2.
Discuss how the Ukraine crisis has challenged their partnership in the geopolitical landscape.
Need to see discussions on growing friendship between the US and the Philippines.
There are typos, please take care of it. Good luck,
Author Response
Please see the attachment (highlighted in green)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper needs major revision. First, there is a major problem with the author's understanding of "white hulls" evidenced by the lack of foundational literature dating back to Harold Kearsley (1992) in Maritime Power and the 21st Century (Dartmouth Press). The major argument back then was that white hulls were preferable to grey hulls, as they did not constitute the same intent. Even in the context of the PCG, there's no real theoretical or major empirical evidence to adequately support the author(s) contention that they are preferable and advance diplomatic aims without the coercive effects. The nature of maritime security in the South China Sea and beyond has shifted simply because the threats take place inside more "grey" zones. And, of course, China's aggression in the SCS provide evidence that this is no longer the case--as the perception now (as the author(s) have suggested in line 274) is that China is using the same tactics and has employed its own Coast Guard for otherwise military tactics.
Further, the expansion of Coast Guard-type vessels by other states (US, Vietnam) normalizes the behavior of white hull vessels in grey-zone contexts. This could potentially redefine the rules of behavior (ROB). (See Lyle Morris 2017, Naval War College Review, 70(2).
I could go much further, but I think this paper needs two things: 1) It requires a much more articulate and thoughtful review of the literature at least dating back to Kearsley. This review should be of the academic literature. 2) Submit the paper to a colleague with expertise in this matter. You might even consult one of the more distinguished scholars cited in the manuscript. It needs an external review.
Lastly, I would take greater note of the many errors in the manuscript. You even misspelled the name of some of those you cite. That's a poor reflection on your attention to detail.
The English needs moderate attention.
Author Response
Please see the attachment (highlighted in blue)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This revised version of your manuscript addresses all the substantive issues I raised.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English language expression is below standard and inappropriate (awkward) word choice undermine the authority of this manuscript. This manuscript must be revised by an editor who has English language as his./her mother tongue. When I read your manuscript I marked where editing was necessary. I was unable to enter these suggested revisions on the PDF version. I have scanned this document and attached it. You should review each annotation and decide how to improve it.
Author Response
I have made major revisions to the english language expressions used in the article, based on the suggestions given by the first reviewer. I would like to point that I did not make changes to several terms suggested, or highlighted by thre reviewer.
- Maritime diplomacy, and diplomatic terms: As the article emphasizes emphasizes the possibility of the Philippines deploying coast guards for diplomatic intentions, this article is informed by the maritime diplomacy literature. Thus, there must be terminologies related to diplomacy throughout the article.
- Term ‘mini-navy’: This term is my expression of how there is a non-traditional mandate given to coast guards in the Philippines.
- ‘armed humanitarian services’: I use this term as the Philippine coast guard expressed themselves as so.
- Maintain ‘good order at sea’: This is commonly used in studies of maritime diplomacy, especially relating to an adherence to the UNCLOS
‘vanishing claims’: A study in 2020 (written by Putra) coined this term to represent Brunei’s suboptimal policy in their South China Sea claim
Reviewer 2 Report
Minor typo edits
minor typo
Author Response
Response:
All typos corrected
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Upon viewing the revised version of the manuscript, I find that the author(s) have only made minor or superficial attention to the comments of the reviewers. To me, this is a quality control issue. If the author(s) are not willing to invest the time needed to make the substantive changes the peer-reviewers require, then this piece should not be published. I did not see any much of a difference in the manuscript from when I made recommendations to now, where much of what I suggested was not included.
Author Response
Response:
It has been difficult to measure what exactly is being critiqued in the second review round of the third reviewer. The reviewer claims that no significant changes have been made, without pointing what exact points need further elaboration, and which requires additional references to existing literature. I would like to point back what the first round review suggests:
- “First, there is a major problem with the author's understanding of "white hulls" evidenced by the lack of foundational literature dating back to Harold Kearsley (1992) in Maritime Power and the 21st Century (Dartmouth Press). The major argument back then was that white hulls were preferable to grey hulls, as they did not constitute the same intent”
: I have added a paragraph citing several past studies on coast guards, specifically, the time when there was a transition of understanding in regards to the strategic utility of coast guards compared to navies. I have added Kearsley, along with several recent studies by Buerger & Edmunds (2017), Bowers & Koh (2017). I further argue that this article attempts to prove there is a diplomatic reason for why the Philippines’ used its coast guards in disputed waters. Thus, I am informed mostly by the maritime diplomatic literature under Le Miere and those working on the utilization of maritime constabulary forces in the Indo-Pacific. This revision is not addressed directly by the reviewer.
- “Even in the context of the PCG, there's no real theoretical or major empirical evidence to adequately support the author(s) contention that they are preferable and advance diplomatic aims without the coercive effects.”
: yet, I have explained in the literature review that there is a growing literature on the use of maritime constabulary forces (including coast guards) that is deployed because it is Less Coercive compared to navies. The literature also shows that they are now preferable, as seen with studies conducted by Parameswaran and Strangjo.
: My article also argues that it does advance diplomatic aims. Unfortunately, the reviewer again fails to directly address this in the reviews. If the reviewer is unconvinced with the analysis made, please provide a specific note why.
- “The nature of maritime security in the South China Sea and beyond has shifted simply because the threats take place inside more "grey" zones. And, of course, China's aggression in the SCS provide evidence that this is no longer the case--as the perception now (as the author(s) have suggested in line 274) is that China is using the same tactics and has employed its own Coast Guard for otherwise military tactics.”
: Exactly. This actually defends my point on the strategic utility of coast guards, regardless of the empirical cause. I pointed this in page 5.
- Further, the expansion of Coast Guard-type vessels by other states (US, Vietnam) normalizes the behavior of white hull vessels in grey-zone contexts. This could potentially redefine the rules of behavior (ROB). (See Lyle Morris 2017, Naval War College Review, 70(2).
: I am aware of this normalization. Yet, it is not the burden of this article to argue whether it is a normal occurrence or one that is rare. Rather, my article focuses on the maritime diplomatic functions of its utility, which I argue as a less-coercive and less-provocative choice. I argue throughout the article that US, Japan, and some Southeast Asian states are utilizing white hulls in grey zones.
Again, I really cannot understand which points that needs to be enhanced or corrected if the reviewers simply just say ‘only minor or superficial attention to the comments…’ No real critique towards my arguments have been made, thus, I do not know how to complete a revision without comments and suggestions.
