Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship
- Thread starter Asymptote
- Start date
bigstick61
Junior Member
If that's the case, then legally speaking, the Chinese are SOL. They don't have any legal recourse if all passive measures fail.
bigstick61
Junior Member
I was wondering if they were going to send out an escort. It makes perfect sense, given that it was shwon to be necessary to prevent Chinese vessels from creating navigational hazards and trying to steal or destroy the ship's towed sonar array, both illegal acts under the circumstances.
However, the PLAN has already been involved in at least two incidents. One involved a PLAN frigate, and the latest one involved a PLAN intelligence vessel. It's not much of an escalation on the part of the U.S.
bigstick61
Junior Member
The U.S. is simply maintaining its policy, represented by the words of the LOST itself, that Chinese jurisdiction is very limited in the EEZ, not extensive like the Chinese are claiming, and that in all other respects the waters are just like international waters. The U.S. views all EEZs the same way, as well as its own EEZ, which it claims on its own (did not ratify the LOST). U.S. policy is to recognize EEZs in the manner described in the LOST.
joshuatree
Captain
The whole argument about LOST is somewhat moot because even when discussing EEZs, there is no detail in regards to military surveillance operations, not unless people are now trying to argue that it is marine research.
bigstick61
Junior Member
That's kind of the point. It does not cover surveillance operations when it comes to EEZs and the rights and jursidiction of the possessing nation. This is out of Chinese jurisdiction. By going beyond this, and conducting the actions they did in general, they violated the law, to include this treaty.
Engineer
Major
People can interpet terms all day long, but at the end of the day, it's the nation that holds the jurisdiction that counts.
A ship which claims itself not in violation of regulations doesn't exempt from being regulated. The ship can still be regulated, and it is up to the country holding the jurisdiction to decide whether the ship has breached any law. However, the ruling of that country must based the guidelines put forth by the Law of the Seas.
As an example, consider a person put before a tribunal, and the person claims innocence. The judge is still the authority that makes a verdict regardless of claims. However, the judge must follow the law in his ruling and cannot make a judgement based on personal reasons. The person is the Impeccable, the judge is China, and the law is Law of the Seas.
China could say that USA ship was harrassing their ships from fishing in their EE zone.
If USA can spy there, China can do "fishing" there.
Who will say who of the two is "right"?
The allegations could go both ways.
China could send their own military ships to deffend their fishery ships to operate in that area.
Don´t?
Last edited:
joshuatree
Captain
Since UNCLOS does not specifically define the legality of military surveillance operations within the EEZ, it is equally within Chinese jurisdiction as the UNCLOS did not specifically remove jurisdiction from the coastal state. Article 56 1c does afford other rights to the coastal state.
And if we look at the US insistence of international waters, Article 88 stipulates the high seas as being reserved for peaceful purposes. Military intelligence is nowhere near peaceful.
At the end of the day, it's still hypocritical to quote UNCLOS when the US does not wish to be a participant. That stands above all else.
This is my opinon: An Exclusive Economic Zone is by definition ECONOMIC, therefore if the USNS Impeccable was fishing or exploring for oil resources, then that would be illegal because it was inside China's EEZ and those are economic activities. However it was not doing anything remotely related to economic activities, therefore being inside the EEZ is a totally moot point.