Japanese ships disrupted Chinese naval exercises

Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

adeptitus said:

I suspect that none of us here know exactly what the international maritime treaty is on navy live fire exercise zones. >_>

There are only 2 possible cases:

1. The treaty specify that other navy's ships MUST stay clear of the live fire zone for limited duration of the exercise.
2. The treaty does not REQUIRE other navy ships to stay out of the live fire zone.

In case #1, if Japan violated the live fire zone for duration of exercise, then Japan has violated the treaty, agreement, law, or whatever.

In case #2, Japan is not obligated to stay out of the live fire zone. It's possible that there are no treaties on this, or staying clear of live fire zone is a recommendation only.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is an international maritime treaty that controls military activities.
The only ones I heard of are international navigational regulations that any and all ship, boat, vessel captains needs to adhere which is basically the traffic rules of the sea but never heard of anything to limit the military activities.

Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

SamuraiBlue said:

That can only happen if each and every captain knows the maneuvers and carefully coordinated.

JMSDF captains are not fool hearted to pull a stunt like that which endanger his crew, ship and his career in which he will no doubtfully be discharged from duty for intentionally placing his ship and crew in harms way for no reason.

This will happen in any good structured navy like the USN, RN,RAN, JMSDF, etc.

Click to expand...

It happens a lot to Chinese task forces, and it is what happened this time according to the diagrams. Now, I agree that individual captains won't do such a thing by their own accords. However, given that such stunts have been pulled, the captains are clearly doing so with blessings from higher up.

In any case, you pretty much agreeing that such stunts are not acceptable. You just can't come to terms that Japan could have done them to begin with, because you probably think such a western-friendly nation can do no wrong. If you look up pictures of Japan Coast Guard facing off Chinese Coast Guards, you wouldn't have claimed those stunts cannot happen.

Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

SamuraiBlue said:

I don't think there is an international maritime treaty that controls military activities.
The only ones I heard of are international navigational regulations that any and all ship, boat, vessel captains needs to adhere which is basically the traffic rules of the sea but never heard of anything to limit the military activities.

Click to expand...

Here is a good rule-of-thumb. For any Japanese action on the sea, just ask whether the same is acceptable when done by PLAN to the USN. If the answer is no, then the action is not acceptable regardless of International Laws.

Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

SamuraiBlue said:

I don't think there is an international maritime treaty that controls military activities.
The only ones I heard of are international navigational regulations that any and all ship, boat, vessel captains needs to adhere which is basically the traffic rules of the sea but never heard of anything to limit the military activities.

Click to expand...

For the most part what you say is correct but there are slight variations.. I do not know about standardized international maritime standards pertaining to specific naval activities in the high seas however the United States Navy adheres to the laws as written in The commander's handbook on the law of naval operations. I'm sure both PLAN and JMSDF has something very similar to it as well.

NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7A

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND
NEWPORT RI 02841-1207
MARINE CORPS COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND
QUANTICO VA 22134-5001

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
WASHINGTON, DC 20593-0001

June 2007
LETTER OF PROMULGATION

1. NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7A, THE COMMANDER’S HANDBOOK ON
THE LAW OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, is UNCLASSIFIED. Handle in accordance with the
administrative procedures contained in NTTP 1-01.
2. NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7A is effective upon receipt and supersedes
NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7 dated October 1995. Destroy superseded material
without report.
3. NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7A is intended for use by operational commanders
and supporting staff elements at all levels of command. It is designed to provide officers in command
and their staffs with an overview of the rules of law governing naval operations in peacetime and during
armed conflict.

4. NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7A is approved for public release; distribution is
unlimited.

3 JUL 2007


2.4.3.1 Warning Areas. Any nation may declare a temporary warning area in
international waters and airspace to advise other nations of the conduct of
activities that, although lawful, are hazardous to navigation and/or overflight.
The U.S. and other nations routinely declare such areas for missile testing,
gunnery exercises, space vehicle recovery operations, and other purposes
entailing some danger to other lawful uses of the high seas by others. Notice of
the establishment of such areas must be promulgated in advance, usually in the
form of a Notice to Mariners (NOTMAR) and/or a Notice to Airmen
(NOT AM). Ships and aircraft of other nations are not required to remain outside
a declared warning area, but are obliged to refrain from interfering with activities
therein. Consequently, ships and aircraft of one nation may operate in a warning
area within international waters and airspace declared by another nation, collect
intelligence and observe the activities involved, subject to the requirement of
due regard for the rights of the declaring nation to use international waters and
airspace for such lawful purposes.66

2.4.4 Declared Security and Defense Zones.
International law does not
recognize the right of any nation to restrict the navigation and overflight of foreign warships and military aircraft beyond its territorial sea. Although several coastal nations have asserted claims that purport to prohibit warships and military
aircraft from operating in so-called security zones extending beyond the
territorial sea, such claims have no basis in international law in time of peace, and
are not recognized by the United States.67

The Charter of the United Nations and general principles of international law
recognize that a nation may exercise measures of individual and collective
self-defense against an armed attack or imminent threat of armed attack. Those
measures may include the establishment of "defensive sea areas" or "maritime
control areas" in which the threatened nation seeks to enforce some degree of
control over foreign entry into those areas. Historically, the establishment of
such areas extending beyond the territorial sea has been restricted to periods of
war or to declared national emergency involving the outbreak of hostilities.
International law does not determine the geographic limits of such areas or the
degree of control that a coastal nation may lawfully exercise over them, beyond
laying down the general requirement of reasonableness in relation to the needs of
national security and defense.

2.6.3 High Seas Freedoms and Warning Areas
All ships and aircraft, including warships and military aircraft, enjoy complete freedom of movement and
operation on and over the high seas. For warships, this includes task force maneuvering, flight operations, military
exercises, surveillance, intelligence gathering activities, and ordnance testing and firing. All nations also enjoy the
right to lay submarine cables and pipelines on the bed of the high seas as well as on the continental shelf beyond
the territorial sea, with coastal nation approval for the course of pipelines on the continental shelf. All of these
activities must be conducted with due regard for the rights of other nations and the safe conduct and operation of
other ships and aircraft.

Any nation may declare a temporary warning area in international waters and airspace to advise other nations of
the conduct of activities that, although lawful, are hazardous to navigation and/or overflight. The United States
and other nations routinely declare such areas for missile testing, gunnery exercises, space vehicle recovery
operations, and other purposes entailing some danger to other lawful uses of the seas by others. Notice of the
establishment of such areas must be promulgated in advance, in the form of a special warning to mariners, notice
to mariners (NOTMAR), notice to airmen (NOTAM), Hydro Altantic/Hydro Pacific (HYDROLANT/HYDROPAC)
messages, and the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System.
Ships and aircraft of other nations are not required to remain outside a declared warning area, but are obliged to
refrain from interfering with activities therein. Consequently, ships and aircraft of one nation may operate in a
warning area within international waters and airspace declared by another nation, collect intelligence and observe
the activities involved, subject to the requirement of due regard for the rights of the declaring nation to use
international waters and airspace for such lawful purposes. The declaring nation may take reasonable measures
including the use of proportionate force to protect the activities against interference. (See paragraph 4.3.7 for a
discussion of the establishment of warning zones during periods of heightened tensions not rising to the level of
international armed conflict.)

2.6.4 Declared Security and Defense Zones
As a general rule, international law does not recognize the peacetime right of any nation to restrict the navigation
and overflight of foreign warships and military aircraft beyond its territorial sea. Although several coastal nations
have asserted claims that purport to prohibit warships and military aircraft from operating in so-called security
zones extending beyond the territorial sea, such claims have no basis in international law in time of peace, and are
not recognized by the United States.

The Charter of the United Nations and general principles of international law recognize that a nation may exercise
measures of individual and collective self-defense against an armed attack or imminent threat of armed attack.
Those measures may include the establishment of “defensive sea areas” or “maritime control areas” in which the
threatened nation seeks to enforce some degree of control over foreign entry into those areas. Historically, the
establishment of such areas extending beyond the territorial sea has been restricted to periods of war or to NWP 1-14M
2-11 JUL 2007
declared national emergency involving the outbreak of hostilities. International law does not determine the
geographic limits of such areas or the degree of control that a coastal nation may lawfully exercise over them,
beyond laying down the general requirement of reasonableness in relation to the needs of national security and
defense. (See paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9 for further discussions of the establishment and limitations of such zones in
the course of an international armed conflict.)


U.S.-U.S.S.R. AGREEMENT ON THE PREVENTION OF
INCIDENTS ON AND OVER THE HIGH SEAS

In order better to assure the safety of navigation and flight of their respective
warships and military aircraft during encounters at sea, the United States and the
former Soviet Union in 1972 entered into the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Agreement on the
Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas. This Navy-to-Navy
agreement, popularly referred to as the "Incidents at Sea" or "~NCSEA"
agreement, has been highly successful in minimizing the potential for harassing
actions and navigational one-upmanship between U.S. and former Soviet units
operating in close proximity at sea. Although the agreement applies to warships
and military aircraft operating on and over the "high seas," it is understood to
embrace such units operating in all international waters and international airsspace,
including that of the exclusive economic zone and the contiguous zone.

Principal provisions of the INCSEA agreement include:
1. Ships will observe strictly both the letter and the spirit of the International
Rules of the Road.

2. Ships will remain well clear of one another to avoid risk of collision and,
when engaged in surveillance activities, will exercise good seamanship so as not to
embarrass or endanger ships under surveillance.

3. Ships will utilize special signals for signalling their operation and intentions.

4. Ships of one party will not simulate attacks by aiming guns, missile
launchers, torpedo tubes, or other weapons at the ships and aircraft of the other
party, and will not launch any object in the direction of passing ships nor illuminate
their navigation bridges.

5. Ships conducting exercises with submerged submarines will show the
appropriate signals to warn of submarines in the area.

6. Ships, when approaching ships of the other party, particularly those engaged
in replenishment or flight operations, will take appropriate measures not to hinder
maneuvers of such ships and will remain well clear.

7. Aircraft will use the greatest caution and prudence in approaching aircraft
and ships of the other party, in particular ships engaged in launching and landing
aircraft, and will not simulate attacks by the simulated use of weapons or perform
aerobatics over ships of the other party nor drop objects near them.

RED text and BLUE text is for the exclusive use of moderators

bd popeye super moderator

Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

All signs of a more desparate and aggressive Japanese policy.



Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe says country is ready to be more assertive against China

Saturday 26 October 2013


Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has said Japan is prepared to be more assertive towards China as Beijing threatened retaliatory strikes if necessary.


During an interview with The Wall Street Journal Abe said Japan should take the lead in guarding against what he believed could be China's attempt to attain its diplomatic goals through force.

He said recent meetings with South East Asian leaders suggested the region sought leadership from Tokyo in terms of security amid China's more forthright diplomacy.

He told the newspaper: "There are concerns that China is attempting to change the status quo by force, rather than by rule of law. But if China opts to take that path, then it won't be able to emerge peacefully.

"So it shouldn't take that path and many nations expect Japan to strongly express that view. And they hope that as a result, China will take responsible action in the international community."

But during a interview today, a top retired Chinese diplomat said any move by Tokyo to contain China could prove to be "extremely dangerous". The defence ministry warned Japan not to underestimate China's resolve to take whatever measures necessary to protect itself.

China responded angrily to a Japanese media report saying Abe had approved a policy for Japan to strike foreign drones that ignore warnings to leave its airspace.

"Don't underestimate the Chinese army's resolute will and determination to protect China's territorial sovereignty," Defence Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng said on the ministry's website. "If Japan does resort to enforcement measures like shooting down aircraft, that is a serious provocation to us, an act of war.

Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

China is most likely referring to the INCSEA (), signed in 1972 between the US and USSR after a spate of really bad incidents - sub collisions, ship collisions, and a Tu-16 Badger plunging into the ocean after trying to buzz a US aircraft carrier during night takeoff/landing operations.

Article VI of INCSEA requires both the US and USSR (now Russia) to inform the other side three to five days in advance of any projected actions that might "represent a danger to navigation or to aircraft in flight", which was treaty-speak for live-fire exercises, localized EW exercises (such as jamming GPS and other navigation signals), etc.

These rules were extended internationally in 1991; states have to notify the World-Wide Navigational Warning Service when they want to do any of these actions three to five days in advance. Ships which do not obey the WWNWS broadcasts during peacetime are in violation of maritime law, and any incidental damage they incur is, from a maritime law perspective, their fault.

TLDR: China could have fired a couple of live anti-ship missiles into the sailing path of the DD-107 with surface search radar turned all the way on, and if some of them happened to hit the Japanese ship, Japan would have had no legal recourse.

Based on that, I think the Japanese skipper must have been acting alone (and off his rocker). If he was really ordered to do so by the JMSDF, then some stern talking-tos are in order, preferably at the ambassadorial level and above, and by both China and the US since this is such a flagrant violation of maritime law.

delete**************************last remark

It is not your place to instruct moderators .

bd popeye super modertor

Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

Here is an example WWNWS broadcast (from today):

NAVAREA XII 281/2013(18) AVAREA XII 281/13(18)
EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC.
CALIFORNIA.
MISSILES.
1. INTERMITTENT MISSILE FIRING OPERATIONS 0001Z TO 2359Z DAILY
MONDAY THRU SUNDAY IN THE NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER SEA RANGE.
THE MAJORITY OF MISSILE FIRINGS TAKE PLACE 1400Z TO 2359Z
AND 0001Z TO 0200Z DAILY MONDAY THRU FRIDAY IN AREA BOUND BY
34-02N 119-04W, 33-52N 119-06W, 33-29N 118-37W,
33-20N 118-37W, 32-11N 120-16W, 31-54N 121-35W,
35-09N 123-39W, 35-29N 123-00W, 35-57N 121-32W,
34-04N 119-04W.
2. VESSELS MAY BE REQUESTED TO ALTER COURSE WITHIN THE ABOVE
AREA DUE TO FIRING OPERATIONS AND ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT
PLEAD CONTROL ON VHF CHANNEL 11 OR 16 BEFORE ENTERING
AREA AND MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS GUARD WHILE WITHIN THE RANGE.
3. VESSELS INBOUND AND OUTBOUND FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PORTS
WILL CREATE THE LEAST INTERFERENCE TO FIRING OPERATIONS AS
POSSIBLE DURING THE SPECIFIC PERIODS. AS WELL AS ENHANCE THE
VESSEL'S SAFETY WHEN PASSING IN VICINITY OF THE SEA RANGE
IF TRANSITING VIA THE SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL AND WITHIN
NINE MILES OF POINT MUGU OR CROSS THE AREA SOUTHWEST
OF SAN NICOLAS ISLAND BETWEEN SUNSET AND SUNRISE.
4. CANCEL NAVAREA XII 253/13.

Click to expand...

Thus, the USN can put special navigation restrictions on a block of international water off the California coast, even though it is legally international waters.

Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

BigWang said:

Simply put, Japan is actively to confront China militarily and to provoke CHina into action because it knows that once started US will be dragged in.

So, Japan wants that to happen.

Since conventional weapons cannot be deterrent, China has no choice but to put its nuke up front and see how much Japan willing to escalate or provoke.

Click to expand...

China has the right to defend when she needed to. If Japan shoot down China drone, China shall return the favour. Be it fighter jet or drone.

Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

t_co said:

China is most likely referring to the INCSEA (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), signed in 1972 between the US and USSR after a spate of really bad incidents - sub collisions, ship collisions, and a Tu-16 Badger plunging into the ocean after trying to buzz a US aircraft carrier during night takeoff/landing operations.

Article VI of INCSEA requires both the US and USSR (now Russia) to inform the other side three to five days in advance of any projected actions that might "represent a danger to navigation or to aircraft in flight", which was treaty-speak for live-fire exercises, localized EW exercises (such as jamming GPS and other navigation signals), etc.

These rules were extended internationally in 1991; states have to notify the World-Wide Navigational Warning Service when they want to do any of these actions three to five days in advance. Ships which do not obey the WWNWS broadcasts during peacetime are in violation of maritime law, and any incidental damage they incur is, from a maritime law perspective, their fault.

TLDR: China could have fired a couple of live anti-ship missiles into the sailing path of the DD-107 with surface search radar turned all the way on, and if some of them happened to hit the Japanese ship, Japan would have had no legal recourse.

Based on that, I think the Japanese skipper must have been acting alone (and off his rocker). If he was really ordered to do so by the JMSDF, then some stern talking-tos are in order, preferably at the ambassadorial level and above, and by both China and the US since this is such a flagrant violation of maritime law.

EDIT: Also, SamuraiBlue is, I believe, the same person as someone who used to troll this forum (and maintains several sinophobic accounts on Skyscrapercity). The mods should look into his IP logs, as well as those of Rutim.

Click to expand...

Auhh, where did you pull the "It's an international agreement"?
Here is an article from last year stating that the US and China requires to sign a similar agreement.



You also omitted various clauses within the "U.S.–Soviet Incidents at Sea agreement" making all your statement false.

• steps to avoid ship collisions
• not interfering in the "formations" of the other party;
• avoiding maneuvers in areas of heavy sea traffic;
• requiring surveillance ships to maintain a safe distance from the object of investigation so as to avoid "embarrassing or endangering the ships under surveillance";
• using accepted international signals when ships maneuver near one another;
• not simulating attacks at, launching objects toward, or illuminating the bridgesof the other party's ships;
• informing vessels when submarines are exercising near them; and
• requiring aircraft commanders to use the greatest caution and prudence in approaching aircraft and ships of the other party and not permitting simulated attacks against aircraft or ships, performing aerobatics over ships, or dropping hazardous objects near them.

Click to expand...

FYI, yes I have an account at Skyscrapercity not several and use the same HN. As for this site this is my first.
I only post how I see them and I do not call other people TROLLS just because the do not agree with my opinion. Basically that kind of attitude is considered bad where I come from.

Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

I am sure there would be some hot-headed skippers on some ship of the JSDMF, just as it is on PLAN. I read that JSDMF denies the claims and I hope there would be some video evidences by PLAN to prove otherwise. I am surprise no video evidences are released yet, if is there which I could have missed out?