Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

bigstick61

Junior Member
No it doesn't. Even more so, the laws regarding the EEZ don't apply here; the South China Sea is in total dispute between all coastal nations (China, Vietnam, and Taiwan). Therefore, if the zone is disputed, unless the dispute can be resolved, the Chinese don't have total rights to the area until final borders and delimitation lines are set. Only in territorial waters are nations free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource, up to 12 nautical miles from the coast. Beyond that, the contiguous zone allows nations to to enforce laws in four specific areas: pollution, taxation, customs, and immigration, up by another 12 nautical miles.

In EEZ's, foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to some regulation of the coastal nation, namely in the area of natural resource conservation. Since the USNS Impeccable was not engaged in activity that would cause problems for natural resource conservation, Chinese actions are therefore illegal, as stated in Article 73 of the UNCLOS.

Furthermore, under Article 73, coastal nations are allowed take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention. What the Chinese did was not any of the above, and therefore in contravention of Article 73.


Furthermore, again under Article 73, as stated, in cases of arrest or detention of foreign vessels the coastal State shall promptly notify the flag State, through appropriate channels, of the action taken and of any penalties subsequently imposed. There was none of that from the Chinese.



Nope, see above. Foreign nations have freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the coastal nation's laws regarding natural resource conservation.

Quite right, and that is the point I have been trying to make to Engineer. Chinese powers are not nearly as extensive as he or the Chinese government is stating.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
That has been the point I have been trying to make over the past few pages.

If you are not allowed to enforce EEZ regulations on certain ships just because of claims that the US has made, then it is non-sensical.

Article 73 of the UNCLOS:

Article73

Enforcement of laws and regulations of the coastal State

1. The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.

2. Arrested vessels and their crews shall be promptly released upon the posting of reasonable bond or other security.

3. Coastal State penalties for violations of fisheries laws and regulations in the exclusive economic zone may not include imprisonment, in the absence of agreements to the contrary by the States concerned, or any other form of corporal punishment.

4. In cases of arrest or detention of foreign vessels the coastal State shall promptly notify the flag State, through appropriate channels, of the action taken and of any penalties subsequently imposed.

Are you trying to say that the Chinese should've have boarded and inspected the US vessel? If they did that, I can assure you this would have been a much bigger incident. Since when is sending a few a patrol boats to play mind games with a ships crew such a big deal?

That would have been perfectly legal under UNCLOS. However, sending a few patrol boats to harass and directly interfere with the freedom of navigation and the safe operation of a ship is in direct contravention of UNCLOS. Had the Chinese patrol boats followed the USNS Impeccable and kept a safe distance away, this would not be a incident.
 

Engineer

Major
No it doesn't. Even more so, the laws regarding the EEZ don't apply here; the South China Sea is in total dispute between all coastal nations (China, Vietnam, and Taiwan)...
Moot point. The area surrounding Hainan isn't in dispute.

In EEZ's, foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to some regulation of the coastal nation, namely in the area of natural resource conservation. Since the USNS Impeccable was not engaged in activity that would cause problems for natural resource conservation, Chinese actions are therefore illegal, as stated in Article 73 of the UNCLOS.
What China has been doing is exercising its rights to enforce regulations as stated in Article 73. Nothing illegal about following legal procedure.

Furthermore, under Article 73, coastal nations are allowed take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention. What the Chinese did was not any of the above, and therefore in contravention of Article 73.
The Chinese did measures, which is in compliance with the above. The above list is only partial. They can't possibly consider every single case when they are drafting the convention, so they use some most common examples to avoid future disputes.

<sarcasm> Obviously, next time China should just arrest the crew and be done with.</sarcasm>

Nope, see above. Foreign nations have freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the coastal nation's laws regarding natural resource conservation.
The actual wording is:
"States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part."
 

bigstick61

Junior Member
Moot point. The area surrounding Hainan isn't in dispute.


What China has been doing is exercising its rights to enforce regulations as stated in Article 73. Nothing illegal about following legal procedure.


The Chinese did measures, which is in compliance with the above. The above list is only partial. They can't possibly consider every single case when they are drafting the convention, so they use some most common examples to avoid future disputes.

<sarcasm> Obviously, next time China should just arrest the crew and be done with.</sarcasm>


The actual wording is:
"States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part."

You forgot that it says, per your citation, that such laws and regulations must be in accordance with the provisions of UNCLOS, such provisions very explicitly limiting the areas China has jursidiction in in the EEZ.
 

Engineer

Major
Nonetheless, strawman arguments were made...And again, I am not claiming the ship being American gives it immunity from anything. That is what a strawman is; arguing against an argument that I did not make.
I am well aware that you haven't made such argument, if that will put you at ease.

Anyhow, China is limited in the types of regulations it can enforce. It has a very narrow jurisdiction. Anything beyond that they have no power over...
Had China actually board the ship and arrested the crew without reasons, for example, then that would be a violation of International Law. In anycase, the Impeccable has been found loitering in the same area for a long time. Close inspections were made but no violations were found so the Impeccable was let go, but this doesn't mean China can't enforce its regulations on the ship then or in the future. Nor does it mean that a simple claim that "it is not in any violation" is enough evidence for the Chinese not to enforce its regulations on the ship.
 
Last edited:

Pointblank

Senior Member
The actual wording is:
"States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part."

No, the actual wording from the UN in the relevant section on the EEZ says this:

"The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention."

Note that your section states that such laws should in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law. Since the Convention further states that such laws only apply to natural resource conservation in the EEZ, my section overruns your section on this matter, as Article 73 is meant to be a clarifier to Article 56.

The Chinese did measures, which is in compliance with the above. The above list is only partial. They can't possibly consider every single case when they are drafting the convention, so they use some most common examples to avoid future disputes.

The Chinese directly violated Article 58 of UNCLOS, which states:

"In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention."

Go over to Article 87, and it states this:

"1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:

(a) freedom of navigation;

(b) freedom of overflight;

(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;

(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;

(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;

(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.

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."
 

xywdx

Junior Member
Go over to Article 87, and it states this:

"1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:

(a) freedom of navigation;

(b) freedom of overflight;

(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;

(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;

(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;

(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.

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 87 refers to high seas, meaning international water outside of EEZ, I don't see how it applies here.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Officials: US ship in China spat was hunting subs

China: Activity by confronted US ship illegal
FOX News AP – In this photo released by the U.S. Navy, the military Sealift Command ocean surveillance ship USNS Impeccable … WASHINGTON – The U.S. Navy ship that got into a scrape with five Chinese vessels last weekend in the South China Sea was looking for threats such as submarines — presumably Chinese — in waters that China claims as its own, defense officials acknowledged Tuesday.

The United States maintains that the unarmed USNS Impeccable was operating legally in international waters when it was surrounded and harassed by the Chinese. Beijing responded hotly to a U.S. protest over Sunday's incident, and neither nation is backing down, even as they prepare for a much-anticipated first meeting between President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao next month.

Although they would not be specific about the Impeccable's mission when it was intercepted by the Chinese ships, two defense officials said the ship is designed and equipped for sub-hunting work and was part of a calculated U.S. surveillance operation in the disputed South China Sea.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the ship's exact capabilities are sensitive. Other U.S. officials have said on the record that the U.S. military will continue to patrol in the South China Sea despite Chinese objections.

A senior U.S. intelligence official said Tuesday the confrontation was the most serious episode between the two nations since 2001, when tensions rose over an in-flight collision between a U.S. and a Chinese plane.

"They seem to be more militarily aggressive," National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"I think the debate is still on in China whether as their military power increases they will be used for good or for pushing people around."

The surveillance ship tows a sonar apparatus that scans and listens for foreign threats that also include mines and torpedoes. The sonar array was deployed at the time of the confrontation, and a U.S. account says Chinese mariners tried to snag it with poles.

The ship is operated by a civilian crew under Navy supervision. It is not a warship or, strictly speaking, a spy ship. Its work is part of a largely unseen cat and mouse game in which the United States tracks foreign submarines on the open seas.

In this case, the sub-hunting took place in a disputed band of water far off the Chinese coastline but within what Beijing considers a 200-mile economic zone under its control. The zone, under international law, gives a state certain rights over the use of natural resources there. That clashes with one of the cardinal principles of America's doctrine of ocean navigation — the right to unrestricted passage in international waters as long as vessels are not encroaching on the economic interests of the country they pass.

"It is our view that we were operating in international waters," State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Tuesday.

While the U.S. has offered talks on the issue, neither side appears willing to compromise.

"The Chinese do the same thing. It's just that they don't do it around us," said Bonnie Glaser, an expert on the Chinese military and U.S.-Chinese relations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Glaser said the two nations need a better rule book for the disputed area, but she predicted that both countries will try to make sure the diplomatic sniping over the Impeccable doesn't go too far.

Analysts also noted that the incident, capping a string of provocations in the South China Sea, comes as China nears announcement that it will expand its naval capabilities. China this week also unveiled its plans for a nearly 15 percent increase in defense spending this year.

China will have an aircraft carrier "very soon," a top Chinese naval officer told a newspaper last week, fueling speculation over a pending official announcement on the long-awaited project. Meanwhile, a State Department official said Tuesday that the Obama administration was considering whether to raise the matter with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, who was due in Washington on Wednesday to meet with U.S. diplomats.

U.S. defense officials had said the Chinese boats veered so close to the Impeccable that the U.S. civilian crew had to spray one Chinese vessel with a high-pressure stream of water. Stripped to their drenched underwear, the Chinese crew came within 25 feet. When the Impeccable tried to withdraw, U.S. officials said, Chinese boats veered in its path and dropped debris in the water
 
Top