It's exceedingly far fetched considering PRC claims have consistently reflected her inherited claims originally made by ROC (Taiwan) as determined by post WW2 treatises, no more, but frequently less. See PRC resolving 12/14 land borders with mostly concessions, reduced ROCs 11dash claim to 9dash for North Vietnam. PRC territory literally shrank under CCP whose settlement history has demonstrated the opposite of expansionism. The "spurious" history claim meme is ROC/TW legal rhetoric that PRC maintains for legal lulz but really it's ROC claimed this, so PRC gain ROC claims after UN recognition shifted to PRC and ultimately that's enough, no reason for PRC to concede on any claims it didn't make but again, inherited.
Also PH vs PRC Arbitral Tribunal ruling is NOT formally recognized by UN or UNCLOS therefore PRC's SCS claims is not in violation of any international law. As in actual international law per UN, not make believe, actually spurious, rules-based-order west likes to pretend is international law. UNCLOS does not supercede territorial disputes that predated it nor have legal authority to settle these disputes, especially when party of dispute (PRC) did not accede to the optional arbituation system.
Also PH vs PRC Arbitral Tribunal ruling is NOT formally recognized by UN or UNCLOS therefore PRC's SCS claims is not in violation of any international law. As in actual international law per UN, not make believe, actually spurious, rules-based-order west likes to pretend is international law. UNCLOS does not supercede territorial disputes that predated it nor have legal authority to settle these disputes, especially when party of dispute (PRC) did not accede to the optional arbituation system.