joshuatree
Captain
Luconia Shoals is naturally above high tide so that should entitle a 12 nm territorial sea. China has not ever acknowledged those shoals as Malaysian unlike Natuna in regards to Indonesia.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
Luconia Shoals is naturally above high tide so that should entitle a 12 nm territorial sea. China has not ever acknowledged those shoals as Malaysian unlike Natuna in regards to Indonesia.
joshuatree
Captain
That's an interesting comment. China does not acknowledge the US's right to conduct surveillance within its EEZ. That's Chinese law so shouldn't the Chinese have the right to do whatever to stop it? Yet when the tables are turned, all of a sudden, people would argue otherwise. The hypocrisy just knows no bounds.
Brumby
Major
Surveillance within EEZ is provided for within UNCLOS except China holds a minority view that is not supported by the provisions and the deliberations that preceded to the final text. This has been beaten to death. If there is a misalignment between international provisions and domestic legislation then it is China's responsibility to make that domestic adjustment and not an excuse to act outside what it has signed up for internationally. Otherwise it is simply a farce.
Only fools would believe UNCLOS will guarantee China's security around her maritime periphery, traditional route of colonization and western invasion. There is no question China has to dominate SCS, one way or the other, sooner or later.
UNCLOS is only a means to an end, for all parties involved. No more no less.
UNCLOS is only a means to an end, for all parties involved. No more no less.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
The final text doesn't say anything about the right to conduct surveillance on EEZ. If anything the law of the sea uphold the innocent passage concept. Meaning passage is guarantee so long it is not of military nature and due consideration to the coastal state. In fact the US use "CIVILIAN CLOTHED" personnel to conduct the surveillance under the pretext of doing research . That is a tacit acknowledgement that snooping is verboten !
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Actually it guarantees passage military or otherwise. The coastal states have the territorial and continuous area for protection. On the other hand underwater research is not allowed within EEZ civilian or otherwise so the coast guards can sternly warn anyone who are caught doing it.
That is why subs found submerged in the EEZ is shadowed since they collect data intentionally or unintentionally through sonar guiding through the water.
Brumby
Major
You are conflating between two zones i.e. territory seas and EEZ. A significant outcome of UNCLOS was the creation of the sui generis EEZ. The EEZ was a grand bargain outcome between the coastal states and the maritime powers i.e. balancing between the economic zone expansion for the coastal states but preserving the freedom of navigation for the maritime powers. Article 58 specifically created the notion of sovereign rights for the coastal states as opposed to sovereignty governing the 12 nm territory seas. The distinction is to differentiate resource rights and the other limited jurisdiction in the EEZ. Btw, innocent passage provisions has no application outside territory seas.
China’s position that surveillance is not permitted within the EEZ is not supported by State practice, a plain reading of UNCLOS, or customary laws of the sea. The only place in UNCLOS that address intelligence collection is Article 19(2)(c). That article restricts foreign ships transiting the territorial sea in innocent passage from engaging in “any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defense or security of the coastal state.” An analogous limitation does not appear in Part V of the Convention which deals with the EEZ. Article 89 provides that “no State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty” and Article 89 applies to the EEZ pursuant to Article 58(2). In other words, there are no specific provisions in UNCLOS that prohibit the conduct of surveillance activities within the EEZ. It should also be pointed out that in accordance with a generally accepted principle of international law, any act that is not prohibited in international law is permitted as per the Lotus principle.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Good opportunity for Beijing to take the initiative and cooperate with Taiwan Province police to jointly examine the evidence and determine guilt.
What else could we expect? China lacks media tycoons with global reach who can somehow persuade an alternative interpretation of contemporary events. She has hundreds of billionaires but none of them is a Murdoch. So the narrative is inevitably anti-China, even anti-Chinese, given the undertow of unresolved historical , geopolitical baggage and rivalries.
Nonetheless, China must dominate SCS. Her increased presence and improved capabilities would alter all claimants expectation on how they could reasonably resolve this mess. Regardless any solution would need the blessings of both China and US, tacit or otherwise.
Laws were written long time ago in a different age. Today is altogether different time, with new realities and different circumstances. FFS US has pretty much abandoned WTO, no longer fit for her needs. Therein come TTIP and TPP. IMF doesn't fit China's requirement, so we see AIIB. It's great nations' tradition to set the rules as they see fit and have the strength to do what needs to be done. They are exceptions, not meek conformists. US is an exception, so is China.
If UNCLOS, and its attendant PCA ruling ignore China's legitimate needs, what would hold her back to change the rules as she sees fit, sooner or later ? It's a foregone conclusion.
Nonetheless, China must dominate SCS. Her increased presence and improved capabilities would alter all claimants expectation on how they could reasonably resolve this mess. Regardless any solution would need the blessings of both China and US, tacit or otherwise.
Laws were written long time ago in a different age. Today is altogether different time, with new realities and different circumstances. FFS US has pretty much abandoned WTO, no longer fit for her needs. Therein come TTIP and TPP. IMF doesn't fit China's requirement, so we see AIIB. It's great nations' tradition to set the rules as they see fit and have the strength to do what needs to be done. They are exceptions, not meek conformists. US is an exception, so is China.
If UNCLOS, and its attendant PCA ruling ignore China's legitimate needs, what would hold her back to change the rules as she sees fit, sooner or later ? It's a foregone conclusion.
Last edited: