evidence: What legal effect, if any, will these projects have on the broader Spratly Islands and South China Sea territorial and maritime disputes? China claims "indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof," consistent with its maps showing nine line segments encircling most of the South China Sea and almost all of the Spratly Islands, the so-called 'nine-dash' line. China's latest lawfare approach involves shifting away from the (universally not recognized) "nine-dash line" claim to a narrower "Four shas (4S)" (Chinese for four sands) claim that more tightly connects the four contested island groups of Pratas Islands, Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands, and Macclesfield Bank. Beijing seemingly now wants to make the legal and diplomatic case that the "Four shas" are China’s historical territorial waters, and part of its extended continental shelf and 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) — despite not offering any new substantive legal arguments or historical evidence to back up the new claim.