South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

[Equation]

Well it hasn't as of yet which means PRC is in violation of.
A nation can't change international rules to meet their own needs. All signatories are required to agree to those changes to ratify it.

Sorry but the sea was seen as international body in which no nation can make claim before UNCLOS so you argument is baseless to begin with.
When PRC became a signatory they agreed to the basis and definition of what makes land making your argument again meaningless.

UNCLOS is not the final border and answer. It can be change.

 

[joshuatree]

I think there is some possible evidence the PRC are aware of this: during the encounter with the P-8, the PLAN side stated "military alert zone" rather than territorial airspace.

Actually all I could gather from the CNN footage was validation that the Chinese merely called on the P-8 as entering their military alert zone, not territorial space. Aside from the Chinese generic re-iterations of indisputable territory within the 9 dashes, does anyone have a link or anything the Chinese specifically saying the reclaimed features have specifically a territorial sea and airspace? If not, this seems more like media manipulation and fear mongering.

Also, the reclamation are not all entirely on submerged features. Some actually were rocks above water so they are entitled to a territorial sea. (Look at how much effort Japan puts on preventing the few remaining rocks above high tide at Okinotorishima from naturally going under.) The irony of the CNN footage of the P-8 circling Fiery is that Fiery is noted having at least one rock if not two above high tide.

Furthermore, so much debate and I notice very little in correlating Taiping Island's EEZ. UNCLOS is from the UN. The UN recognizes the One China policy. Therefore Taiping is not a separate issue from the reclamation. All reclamation is within the theoretical 200 nm EEZ drawn around Taiping. And UNCLOS Article 60 allows a coastal state to build artificial features within their EEZ, regulate them, and even establish safety zones.

 

[joshuatree]

I think you're right, Brumby. UNCLOS doesn't recognize artificial islands as real ones, so China shouldn't get 12 mile territorial waters around them. On the other hand, the 2,000 newly formed acres are indeed land features, so it's not clear what legal status they would eventually enjoy.

But UNCLOS does afford artificial islands within an EEZ a safety zone of 500 meters around them. So for those that were not natural land features above high tide, they could still get 500 meters factoring in the potential EEZ of Taiping.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

You make absolutely no sense at all. What exactly do you mean when you say "no nation can make claim before UNCLOS?" That's demonstrably FALSE and I could show you plenty of nations making the exact SCS claims that you say they can't. Baseless you say? Try it again, but with more feelings.

Before UNCLOS a nation cannot make claim to body of water beside territorial shore line.
That changed with UNCLOS with the acceptance of EEZ. Both are based on a baseline which is natural formation that is above waters at high tide.
The land PRC is claim is not nor the open sea that is 200 miles from any shorelines within the 9 dash line.

 

[Blitzo]

Actually all I could gather from the CNN footage was validation that the Chinese merely called on the P-8 as entering their military alert zone, not territorial space.

That's exactly what I said.

Aside from the Chinese generic re-iterations of indisputable territory within the 9 dashes, does anyone have a link or anything the Chinese specifically saying the reclaimed features have specifically a territorial sea and airspace? If not, this seems more like media manipulation and fear mongering.

Also, the reclamation are not all entirely on submerged features. Some actually were rocks above water so they are entitled to a territorial sea. (Look at how much effort Japan puts on preventing the few remaining rocks above high tide at Okinotorishima from naturally going under.) The irony of the CNN footage of the P-8 circling Fiery is that Fiery is noted having at least one rock if not two above high tide.

Furthermore, so much debate and I notice very little in correlating Taiping Island's EEZ. UNCLOS is from the UN. The UN recognizes the One China policy. Therefore Taiping is not a separate issue from the reclamation. All reclamation is within the theoretical 200 nm EEZ drawn around Taiping. And UNCLOS Article 60 allows a coastal state to build artificial features within their EEZ, regulate them, and even establish safety zones.

Interesting aspects, I'd be interested to see this visualized on a map

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Also, the reclamation are not all entirely on submerged features. Some actually were rocks above water so they are entitled to a territorial sea.

They require to be above water during high tide which I believe they were not. So reclaimed land based on those reefs does not support any territorial claims.

 

[Blitzo]

Before UNCLOS a nation cannot make claim to body of water beside territorial shore line.
That changed with UNCLOS with the acceptance of EEZ.
Which both are based on a baseline which is natural formation that is above waters at high tide.
The land PRC is claim is not nor the open sea that is 200 miles from any shorelines within the 9 dash line.

Note my post on the last page: China's acceptance of UNCLOS means they're interpreting it as applying to the islands within the 9 dashed line which were "always" their "sovereign" territory.
In other words, the Chinese interpretation is that the islands are sovereign Chinese territory within the nine dash line... probably similar in the same way that say, Hawaii is sovereign US territory despite being so far from the US continental coast, or how Okinotorishima is sovereign Japanese territory despite being so far from the Japanese main island's coast.

From that perspective it is possible to reconcile the nine dashed line as well as UNCLOS.

 

[joshuatree]

Sorry but since PRC is a signatory of UNCLOS and as a willing participant she is required to abide the rules in which the treaty dictates. UNCLOS does not recognize PRC's claim under the treaty's definition.
You can't be part of an international party while still adopting something that goes against it.

Except China is not an exception with States making declarations when signing onto UNCLOS that includes a list of caveats that don't conform to UNCLOS in its entirety. So if China is to be crucified on this account, all other countries need to be.

Philippines
Understanding made upon signature (10 December 1982) and confirmed upon ratification (8 May 1984) 8/ 9/

1. The signing of the Convention by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines under and arising from the Constitution of the Philippines.

2. Such signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines as successor of the United States of America, under and arising out of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of America of 10 December 1898, and the Treaty of Washington between the United States of America and Great Britain of 2 January 1930.

3. Such signing shall not diminish or in any manner affect the rights and obligations of the contracting parties under the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States of America of 30 August 1951 and its related interpretative instruments; nor those under any other pertinent bilateral or multilateral treaty or agreement to which the Philippines is a party.

4. Such signing shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines over any territory over which it exercises sovereign authority, such as the Kalayaan Islands, and the waters appurtenant thereto.

5. The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and Presidential Decrees or Proclamation of the Republic of the Philippines; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines maintains and reserves the right and authority to make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippines Constitution.

6. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic State over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty, independence and security.

7. The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines, and removes straits connecting these waters with the economic zone or high sea from the rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation.

8. The agreement of the Republic of the Philippines to the submission for peaceful resolution, under any of the procedures provided in the Convention, of disputes under article 298 shall not be considered as a derogation of Philippines sovereignty.

Viet Nam

Upon ratification (25 July 1994) 13/:

The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, by ratifying the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, expresses its determination to join the international community in the establishment of an equitable legal order and in the promotion of maritime development and cooperation.

The National Assembly reaffirms the sovereignty of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam over its internal waters and territorial sea; the sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Viet Nam, based on the provisions of the Convention and principles of international law; and calls on other countries to respect the above-said rights of Viet Nam.

The National Assembly reiterates Viet Nam's sovereignty over the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes and its position to settle those disputes relating to territorial claims as well as other disputes in the Eastern Sea through peaceful negotiations in the spirit of equality, mutual respect and understanding, and with due respect of international law, particularly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and of the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the coastal States over their respective continental shelves and exclusive economic zones; the concerned parties should, while exerting active efforts to promote negotiations for a fundamental and long-term solution, maintain stability on the basis of the status quo, refrain from any act that may further complicate the situation and from the use of force or threat of force.

The National Assembly [differentiates] between the settlement of the dispute over the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes and the defence of the continental shelf and maritime zones falling under Viet Nam's sovereignty, rights and jurisdiction, based on the principles and standards specified in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The National Assembly [authorizes] the National Assembly's Standing Committee and the Government to review all relevant national legislation to consider necessary amendments in conformity with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and to safeguard the interests of Viet Nam.

The National Assembly authorizes the Government to undertake effective measures for the management and defence of the continental shelf and maritime zones of Viet Nam.

And an example of another State not recognizing the right of another State's military to freely conduct operations within it's EEZ. I would like the see the US buzz around in the Indian EEZ and see what they say.

India


Declaration made upon ratification (29 June 1995):

(a) The Government of the Republic of India reserves the right to make at the appropriate time the declarations provided for in articles 287 and 298, concerning the settlement of disputes;

(b) The Government of the Republic of India understands that the provisions of the Convention do not authorize other States to carry out in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives without the consent of the coastal State.

I don't know why lines crossing out the wording appear near the bottom of my post.

 

[joshuatree]

They require to be above water during high tide which I believe they were not. So reclaimed land based on those reefs does not support any territorial claims.

Some are, Fiery Cross is one of them.

 

[Brumby]

I agree with what you said about everything about high tide and natural formation, but for the record, the nine dash line territorial claim was made and "inherited" prior to the existence of UNCLOS in 1982 (the nine dash line was drawn up in the late 40s by Chiang Kai Shek's ROC).

In other words, the actual basis of the nine dash line was never created on the basis of UNCLOS but rather historical reasons of the time, and the question is whether the nine dash line is automatically invalid because of China being signatory to UNCLOS.

The LOS convention was put in place to settle disputes between states such as this and within that convention it outlines very specific conditions in which disputes are assessed and resolved. Specifically claims based on historic "rights"; "title"; or "water" are generally excluded except under very narrow conditions. The text and drafting history of the Convention make clear that, apart from a narrow category of near-shore "‘historic’ bays" (Article 10) and "historic title" in the context of territorial sea boundary delimitation (Article 15), the modern international law of the sea does not recognize history as the basis for maritime jurisdiction.

In other words, the nine dash line has no international legal foundation to stand on, and precisely why China has been asked to lay out its legal premise regarding its claim. As is, China is making up its own rules but at the same time not explaining what exactly is its premise.