China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

And how exactly does China's ADIZ overlap? A country can't overlap its own space.

Sorry. I have decided not to reply anymore to your post as I have exhausted my oxygen. I thought at a minimum I should at least let you know.

 

[Blackstone]

Sorry. I have decided not to reply anymore to your post as I have exhausted my oxygen. I thought at a minimum I should at least let you know.

Heh, fair enough Brumby. We often see things in the same light, just not this case. No hard feelings.

 

[Yvrch]

If someone thinks UNCLOS can tie China down to a grinding halt in her SCS activities, despite some half convincing points in legalese back and forth arguments that have such big holes that a camel wouldn't have any problem walking through, I'd say that's great for China. It's in China's interest to have smaller opponents firmly believe in the holy grail of UNCLOS in SCS disputes. There is no other way but only to let them take their full course.

 

[joshuatree]

UNCLOS is very clear on freedom of navigation simply because it is an extension of customary time honoured principle of the laws of the sea. What UNCLOS did is codified and resulted in the creation of the EEZ which in legal terms is zone sui generis. It is unique and consequently the convention specifically defined the term sovereign rights vs. sovereign to account for what rights a coastal state can exercise within that zone. What you are suggesting about retuning a zone has no legal standing in international law nor allowed for in UNCLOS. Your mention of a safety zone does not attached to it the same rights as a zone in territory seas. What you are saying is untenable - legally.

UNCLOS allows freedom of navigation, no where does it explicit state it allows military surveillance. To equate the two as the same thing is an interpretation of some states. But other states consider uninvited military surveillance as non-peaceful activity. It's one thing if a P-8 flew over the reclamation enroute from point A to B. That's clearly freedom of navigation. But when merely circling around and having full sensor sweep, that's hardly just navigating.


Article 87

2. These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area.


Article 88

The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.


Actually the retuning of a zone I suggested has very much a legal standing, Article 60. I never said a retuned zone is the equivalent of a territorial zone. But nonetheless, it is still a zone UNCLOS legally affords.

Whilst is an often push back against the US for not ratifying UNCLOS it should also be noted that in response to UNCLOS, President Reagan also expressed (I believe in writing) that the US will respect the terms of UNCLOS.

The best way the US can respect the terms of UNCLOS is to ratify it. Or to put it in another way, why is the US not ratifying it if it so respects the terms of UNCLOS? Perhaps answering that is the best way of deciphering how much or how little the US position differs from UNCLOS.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

I don't know if this had been confirmed but it looks as if PRC had brought in weapons into those reclaimed soil.

China moves weapons on to artificial islands in South China Sea
EXCLUSIVE

China has moved weaponry onto artificial islands that it is building in contested areas of the South China Sea, adding to the risks of a confrontation with the United States and its regional security partners including Australia.

Australian officials are concerned that China could also introduce long-range radar, anti-aircraft guns and regular surveillance flights that will enable it to project military power across a maritime expanse which include some of Australia's busiest trading lanes.

Fairfax understands that these concerns are prompting discussions in senior military circles that could lead to Australian naval officers and air force pilots embarking on "freedom of navigation" missions to demonstrate that Canberra does not accept Beijing's hardening claims.

The options, which include fly-throughs, sail-throughs and exercises involving various regional partners, are expected to crystallise after officials deliver a personal briefing to Prime Minister Tony Abbott during the next fortnight...... to read more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Yvrch]

First, for all practical purposes, UNCLOS is effectively toothless in SCS disputes, thereby making it a practically useless framework to resolve the disputes for the foreseeable future.
Second, this brings our attention to how things in the real world work, whatever that may be, whatever that may mean, but we need to find out. If UNCLOS makes smaller claimants busy reading legalese, all the while wholly missing what's coming down for real, all the better.

 

[Blackstone]

I don't know if this had been confirmed but it looks as if PRC had brought in weapons into those reclaimed soil.

PRC installing weapons and sensors on their own territory is just and proper.

 

[advill]

Installing weapons and sensor show China's intention to protect the reefs/territory. How about fly overs by US and other surveillance aircraft, will they be shot down? I don't think the fly-overs will be discontinued or naval ships sailing close to the 12 - mile limit. War of aggression will commence if miscalculated moves are made.

 

[joshuatree]

Addressed generally above. Having said that I would like to briefly mentioned why China's ADIZ in ESC is not in conformity with international practice. The first is in the overlap of airspace and secondly and more importantly, in-transit flights are not subject to it but only aircraft intending to enter sovereign airspace. This is to be consistent with international right of passage and delimitation of sovereign borders.

Actually on your first count - Japan's ADIZ overlaps Taiwan's ICAO approved air sector. They also unilaterally imposed this expansion against Taiwan's protests.

On the second count - In-transit flights being subjected to ADIZ notification rules has been practiced by Japan on Taiwanese aircraft. Taiwanese civilian flights have been intercepted by Japanese military planes before, hardly safe or reassuring.

 

[joshuatree]

I don't know if this had been confirmed but it looks as if PRC had brought in weapons into those reclaimed soil.

All of those locations already had weapons prior to reclamation. One would find weapons also on features occupied by other claimants as well.