South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Equation said:

Aren't they both one in the same? Rule of law can be discriminatory as well especially those that wield power and influence to make the laws more into their favor. Nothing is simply black and white in life.

Click to expand...

Not if the argument clearly takes into account the difference between the substance in principle and the execution in practice. The notion that justice is blind speaks of the rule of law being at the pointy end and those below is subject to it. However in terms of execution, there might be degrees of success for various reasons. In rule by law, justice is simply an instrument that is subject to the person wielding because at the pointy end is not the law but an institution that decides when, how and to whom justice is directed. In other words, it is above the law and not subject to it.

Bltizo said:

By the way, I've never understood what it meant in terms of the SCS, whether it meant territorial dominance, or military/surveillance dominance, or both. If China believes the SCS is a China lake in the sense of military/surveillance dominance, then what exactly is the legal problem if there is one at all?

Click to expand...

I can't edit my last post, but when I say "I've never understood what it meant" -- I had meant to write "I've never understood what the phrase "China lake" meant".

Bltizo said:

There is no legal requirement that an ADIZ requires procedures which are based on a "credible" legal source.

Click to expand...

In a civilised society, legal principles are not some abstract idea divorced from the functioning of that society. With regards to international airspace it is grounded on the principle of caelum liberam (freedom of the skies). As such any administration of ADIZ needs to reconcile to this overriding principle and any potential conflict has to be addressed qualitatively and not just brushed off as an inconvenience. Any infringement of movement especially if threats are imposed have to be grounded on some credible principle and not just as a matter of preference especially when it is an international issue.
We have already labored extensively on this point and I will give you the last word.

Bltizo said:

You can accuse them of being over-compensating in their wording.

Click to expand...

Words have meaning and they are crafted to convey a message especially in matters of international relations. Using language that clearly has inclusion of meaning of being a threat cannot be justified as simply overcompensating in words. In contrast, China as policy insist surveillance when conducted in international airspace is a threat to security even when this very subject had been tabled at the UN Security Council during the Cold War and had been rejected. Why the duplicity? The underlying problem is without respect for the institution of a law based order, every subject and meaning becomes subservient to preference and convenience.

Bltizo said:

But saying that their ADIZ procedure includes measures that may include the use of force and thus lacks legal grounding is irrelevant because ADIZs do not have to legally rely on any sort of firm legal basis to begin with.

Click to expand...

If you are saying that there need not be a legal basis to invade another country then your argument would be sufficient but I don't think that is what you mean. ADIZ has to reconcile to the principle of unhindered movement within international airspace. Procedurally it is generally accepted as a pre-condition to enter a country's national airspace just like you need a visa. That is in itself intuitive enough without having to go through the justification of why a visa is needed or the legal basis for it. If you don't intend to enter country X you don't have to get a visa just like when an aircraft is just transiting through international airspace. The problem is that you keep on arguing that there are no legal basis to prevent you from insisting that person needs to get a visa regardless and that includes exercising a threat because the person don't have a visa. In this case, such an imposition is unreasonable relative to the principle of freedom of movement in international airspace. If you wish to override such an important principle, you need to have a compelling legal justification.

Bltizo said:

Furthermore even if one wanted to look at it from a legal perspective, reserving the right to use force in international airspace should not be that contentious as it can merely be perceived as being viewed within the context of wartime or the onset of war. The fact that the ADIZ includes provisions for actions during wartime should not be a major concern, nor is it somehow legally outrageous.

Click to expand...

Such an argument is even more problematic as you are conflating between war and peace time. There is a reason why hostility is declared because it signals a change in the situation and a different set of rules applying during conflict as opposed to peace time. You can't logically argue during peace time that somehow conflict rules apply. That is a logical inconsistency.

Bltizo said:

You're partly right -- however the disagreement is more rooted in our differing faith of rule based systems.

I would also like to believe in a rule based order, but I believe certain nations are able to flout international law when it suits them, and without substantial consequence. Furthermore, I believe the rule based order has been built on certain unequal foundations which causes certain rules to slant in a way which causes systematic inequalities in power in geopolitics, and the privileged nations in power have no motivation to change it given it greatly benefits them. Therefore certain nations will then inevitably seek to change those norms and laws more to their suiting, if they start to become more powerful.
The risk of course, is that it may lead to a risk of substantial conflict, and I can appreciate why the side who benefits from the rules may seek to preserve it but I can also appreciate why the side who would want to change the rules may seek it as well.

Click to expand...

I can agree that rules as an outcome can favor one party over another. The main problem though is that in the case of China which it feels there are a set of rules that are unfavourable and attempts to change the status quo but yet not offering an alternative set but uncertainty. If China aspires to lead it must also set a path and articulate what the rules are because leading requires clarity to others and not confusion. It can't hide behind a veil of indisputability and expect acceptance. It may work domestically by fiat and if there are dissent just send them to education camp or indefinite detention, but international relations is a different animal.

Bltizo said:

Of course it would be problematic in international relations, however it would also be quite legal. After all they would merely be conducting standard military aviation activities in international airspace.

Click to expand...

Please enlighten me.

Bltizo said:

That said, our definitions of "ADIZ-like" activities may differ. In my definition, "ADIZ-like" activities would essentially be conducting surveillance and occasional visual intercept missions in international airspace. They obviously would not require aircraft to file flight plans or place any requirements on any aircraft at all because there is no ADIZ procedures.

By the way, I've never understood what it meant in terms of the SCS, whether it meant territorial dominance, or military/surveillance dominance, or both. If China believes the SCS is a China lake in the sense of military/surveillance dominance, then what exactly is the legal problem if there is one at all?

Click to expand...

At the most basic level, the issue is legitimacy. All acts arise from a source and a sovereign body is entitled to certain sovereignty rights. In the SCS because title is disputed, any acts arising from a disputed source lacks legitimacy to enforce.

Bltizo said:

And as I said, how much of the international community really cares (beyond some of the regional powers) is an issue to watch.

Click to expand...

That argument carries limited mileage. What is right is independent of awareness. Stealing as an act doesn't make it right even if not caught.

Brumby said:

In a civilised society, legal principles are not some abstract idea divorced from the functioning of that society. With regards to international airspace it is grounded on the principle of caelum liberam (freedom of the skies). As such any administration of ADIZ needs to reconcile to this overriding principle and any potential conflict has to be addressed qualitatively and not just brushed off as an inconvenience. Any infringement of movement especially if threats are imposed have to be grounded on some credible principle and not just as a matter of preference especially when it is an international issue.
We have already labored extensively on this point and I will give you the last word.

Click to expand...

This is an entirely tangential to the original point at hand, which is your claim that China's supposed deviation from the norm in its ADIZ is required to follow certain existing legal frameworks to be considered legitimate, when no such legal requirement exists in the world.

You are making a statement about how you believe something should be done, but you lack the means to argue that not doing so in that way is legally incorrect, because as I've repeatedly said, there are no legal requirements for it to be done in the way you believe.

Words have meaning and they are crafted to convey a message especially in matters of international relations. Using language that clearly has inclusion of meaning of being a threat cannot be justified as simply overcompensating in words. In contrast, China as policy insist surveillance when conducted in international airspace is a threat to security even when this very subject had been tabled at the UN Security Council during the Cold War and had been rejected. Why the duplicity? The underlying problem is without respect for the institution of a law based order, every subject and meaning becomes subservient to preference and convenience.

Click to expand...

Yes of course words have meaning. The meaning here, being that depending on the situation, China will not rule out using deadly force in its ADIZ.

I see nothing duplicitous about that, and any normal entity would be able to sensibly recognize what this entails.

If you are saying that there need not be a legal basis to invade another country then your argument would be sufficient but I don't think that is what you mean. ADIZ has to reconcile to the principle of unhindered movement within international airspace. Procedurally it is generally accepted as a pre-condition to enter a country's national airspace just like you need a visa. That is in itself intuitive enough without having to go through the justification of why a visa is needed or the legal basis for it. If you don't intend to enter country X you don't have to get a visa just like when an aircraft is just transiting through international airspace. The problem is that you keep on arguing that there are no legal basis to prevent you from insisting that person needs to get a visa regardless and that includes exercising a threat because the person don't have a visa. In this case, such an imposition is unreasonable relative to the principle of freedom of movement in international airspace. If you wish to override such an important principle, you need to have a compelling legal justification.

Click to expand...

You originally said the inclusion of the use of force in the ECS ADIZ had no legal grounding.
My premises in response to this are simple:
1: there are no legal requirements for an ADIZ to have legal grounding.
2: thus technically, one can write their own ADIZ however they like and remain legally sound.

You can however argue that particular clauses of an ADIZ may infringe on other internationally accepted laws, but you are unable to criticize an ADIZ for lacking a legal grounding because there is no requirement for an ADIZ to have it.
So if you had argued that inclusion of the use of force in the ECS ADIZ wording somehow crossed an existing law (whether it's around freedom of navigation or whatever), then I would be willing to engage your argument on those terms.

Such an argument is even more problematic as you are conflating between war and peace time. There is a reason why hostility is declared because it signals a change in the situation and a different set of rules applying during conflict as opposed to peace time. You can't logically argue during peace time that somehow conflict rules apply. That is a logical inconsistency.

Click to expand...

No one's saying that conflict rules apply during peacetime, and I've never said that China's ADIZ procedures is one of conflict procedures.

I am merely saying that China's ADIZ procedure can be sensibly interpreted to account for all levels of tension including that of war time, and there is nothing about doing so which breaks any existing laws.

You can argue that the lack of clear differentiation of varying levels of "defensive responses" creates room for misunderstanding and tension, which I would agree with, but I also maintain my position that there is nothing about the wording of that ADIZ procedure which is inconsistent with international law.

I can agree that rules as an outcome can favor one party over another. The main problem though is that in the case of China which it feels there are a set of rules that are unfavourable and attempts to change the status quo but yet not offering an alternative set but uncertainty. If China aspires to lead it must also set a path and articulate what the rules are because leading requires clarity to others and not confusion. It can't hide behind a veil of indisputability and expect acceptance. It may work domestically by fiat and if there are dissent just send them to education camp or indefinite detention, but international relations is a different animal.

Click to expand...

I can understand that position.

However I also think China is playing a long game and all sides have a few more cards in their hands yet before all is said and done.

Please enlighten me.

Click to expand...

I'd described them quite concisely in one of my previous posts -- it would essentially be conducting standard military aviation activities from one of the reclaimed islands with airbases.

Radar would track and monitor the international airspace in the SCS, and any suspicious or potentially threatening aircraft would get a fighter jet to intercept and visually identify them. Certain aircraft such as military aircraft might get a fighter escort for quite a while. (no laws against that)
But there would be no demands for any or all aircraft to have to file a flight plan or turn on beacons, which are common procedures as part of an ADIZ.

Of course, one could argue that deploying military aircraft to the reclaimed islands with airbases is in the legal gray zone, and deploying military aircraft there would obviously be seen as a deliberately escalatory move... but the actions of monitoring, surveillance, and aerial interception and escort itself, in international airspace, would be well within norms.

At the most basic level, the issue is legitimacy. All acts arise from a source and a sovereign body is entitled to certain sovereignty rights. In the SCS because title is disputed, any acts arising from a disputed source lacks legitimacy to enforce.

Click to expand...

That doesn't really answer the question, but whatever, it's not an area of contention, only an area of confusion.

That argument carries limited mileage. What is right is independent of awareness. Stealing as an act doesn't make it right even if not caught.

Click to expand...

I'm not making any sort of argument with that statement, it's only a statement in of itself.

Haven't read all of the each side of argument being too long but would like to inject why ADIZ were created in the first place.
They were first established when planes became supersonic and nuclear armament became possible on missiles and became a potential threat to the civilian population living on the coast line since the level of technology had exceeded the ones defending the shorelines to respond without an ADIZ in place. So most ADIZ only deal with planes heading towards the shores does not impose requirements to those that run parallel because those planes does not pose threat to the general population and provide the space for freedom of air navigation.
PRC's ADIZ does not provide that room and further more has nothing to do with defending civilian population and widely hinders freedom of air navigation which is the reason why so many nations are against it.

SamuraiBlue said:

Haven't read all of the each side of argument being too long but would like to inject why ADIZ were created in the first place.
They were first established when planes became supersonic and nuclear armament became possible on missiles and became a potential threat to the civilian population living on the coast line since the level of technology had exceeded the ones defending the shorelines to respond without an ADIZ in place. So most ADIZ only deal with planes heading towards the shores does not impose requirements to those that run parallel because those planes does not pose threat to the general population and provide the space for freedom of air navigation.
PRC's ADIZ does not provide that room and further more has nothing to do with defending civilian population and widely hinders freedom of air navigation which is the reason why so many nations are against it.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty well aware about the history of why ADIZs are required, and back in late 2013 when the ECS ADIZ emerged there was also a lot of back and forth criticism and counter justification for why China's ADIZ was written the way it was. I think you were part of that discussion, actually.

The discussion right now is surrounding some of the more detailed lingo in specific ADIZ procedures and whether they cross any specific laws or if certain legal prerequisites are necessary in establishing an ADIZ.

Brumby said:

Not if the argument clearly takes into account the difference between the substance in principle and the execution in practice. The notion that justice is blind speaks of the rule of law being at the pointy end and those below is subject to it. However in terms of execution, there might be degrees of success for various reasons. In rule by law, justice is simply an instrument that is subject to the person wielding because at the pointy end is not the law but an institution that decides when, how and to whom justice is directed. In other words, it is above the law and not subject to it.

Click to expand...

Yes, but both still applies the human factor of judgment and belief system to carry out any justices warrant to them. Institution alone is not enough to carry out a consistent factor of justices through time. Institution can also be corrupted and manipulated to a point where it can dictate what is law and what is not. Law is created by human not by some divine force and how one applies to it is up to society to decide; and it will continue to change.

Feature on Vietnamese lighthouses:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

VietNamNet Bridge – Lighthouses on Truong Sa (Spratly) archipelago guide ships at night and confirm Vietnam’s maritime sovereignty.

Located on Da Lat island, the Da Lat lighthouse was built in 1994 at a height of 42m.

To keep the lighthouses lit, lighthouse workers have to work all day and night in an extreme environment.

Truong Sa archipelago hosts nine lighthouses, three of which are located on Da Lat (Ladd Reef), Da Tay (West Reef), and Tien Nu islands.
Situated to the south of Truong Sa archipelago and built in 1994, Da Lat Reef’s lighthouse is 42 meters high and operated by four workers of the East Sea and Islands Maritime Safety Company.

Most of the station’s area is used for operating the lighthouse while a small space in the corridor is reserved for growing vegetables and raising chickens.

Vu Duy Tien, one of the four workers at the station, said there are four working shifts a night. When one person is on duty, the others will do other works like technical check and cleaning of the lighting system.

Tien said, “The island weather is very severe and the work is very hard. Of course, we lack many things but we love our job and the national sea and islands.”

Tien who has worked on Truong Sa archipelago for 20 years said the living conditions there have improved significantly. Every two months, supply boat Hai Dang 5 carries equipment and essentials for the staff.

The lighthouse on Truong Sa Lon Island is 25m high so ships, about 18 nautical miles away, can see the light. The lighthouse lamp is regularly maintained. (Photo: VNP)


Due to the harsh working conditions, lighthouse workers must have good health and professional skills. Whenever they fulfill their terms in one station, they will take a new mission in another.

Trinh Van Nguyen, head of Da Lat Lighthouse, said he had been working in all nine lighthouses on Truong Sa.

“My colleagues and I have safeguarded the lighthouses for 20 years. We have much experience in handling breakdowns. I can take vegetable farming as a very simple example. When the wind is so harsh or the waves hit the lighthouse, we will relocate the vegetable boxes further into the island. But we never think of leaving the posts,” Nguyen shared.

Staff members of Da Tay Lighthouse take responsibility of guiding vessels to identify their co-ordinates to get exact directions.
Tran Van Khanh, head of Da Tay Lighthouse, said with three members, they change a shift every two hours. The station has been equipped with a new maritime signal system.

He noted, "The work at the lighthouse is nonstop. The light must be kept turned on all the time. When there is a system breakdown, we only have minutes to fix it. If there are interruptions in maritime signals, it might be very dangerous for passing ships, losing direction or hitting hidden rocks or coral reefs."

The Da Tay Lighthouse is on Da Tay reef, built in June 1994, with a height of 20m.

After 20 years, Bui Van Son, Nam Yet Lighthouse’s chief, remains determined to work on Truong Sa archipelago. This is the second time he has worked in Nam Yet.

“I began to watch over the lighthouse in An Bang Island in 1995. At that time life was very difficult. Now we have electricity making the living condition better. We also have a TV and cold storage to keep food. More importantly, we have been provided with telephone helping us to communicate with our families. The mainland and island have become much closer to each other,” Son explained.

Click to expand...

The 9 Vietnamese lighthouses in the Spratlys, with build dates:

The lighthouses in Truong Sa are managed by the Southern Maritime Safety Management Corporation. In the photo is the lighthouse on the island of An Bang, which was built in May 1995, with the height of 24.9 m.

The Da Lat lighthouse is located on the island of Da Lat. It was built in 1994, with a height of 42m.

The Da Tay Lighthouse is on Da Tay reef, built in June 1994, with a height of 20m.

Nam Yet lighthouse was built in 2013 on Nam Yet Island, with a height of 24.9 meters.

Sinh Ton lighthouse was built in 2012 with a height of 24.9 m.

Click to expand...

List of build dates: 1993, 1994, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2009, 2009, 2012, 2013

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Son Ca lighthouse was built in 2009, with a height of 28 m.

Song Tu Tay lighthouse is about 320 nautical miles from Nha Trang. The island of Song Tu Tay has an area of about 12 hectares. It is one of the six largest islands in Truong Sa. The lighthouse was built in 1993, with a height of about 36m.

Tien Nu lighthouse was built in 2000, with a height of 22.1 m.

Truong Sa Lon lighthouse was built in 2009, with a height of 14.2m.

Click to expand...