South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)
- Thread starter PanAsian
- Start date
joshuatree
Captain
Actually all I could gather from the CNN footage was validation that the Chinese merely called on the P-8 as entering their military alert zone, not territorial space. Aside from the Chinese generic re-iterations of indisputable territory within the 9 dashes, does anyone have a link or anything the Chinese specifically saying the reclaimed features have specifically a territorial sea and airspace? If not, this seems more like media manipulation and fear mongering.
Also, the reclamation are not all entirely on submerged features. Some actually were rocks above water so they are entitled to a territorial sea. (Look at how much effort Japan puts on preventing the few remaining rocks above high tide at Okinotorishima from naturally going under.) The irony of the CNN footage of the P-8 circling Fiery is that Fiery is noted having at least one rock if not two above high tide.
Furthermore, so much debate and I notice very little in correlating Taiping Island's EEZ. UNCLOS is from the UN. The UN recognizes the One China policy. Therefore Taiping is not a separate issue from the reclamation. All reclamation is within the theoretical 200 nm EEZ drawn around Taiping. And UNCLOS Article 60 allows a coastal state to build artificial features within their EEZ, regulate them, and even establish safety zones.
joshuatree
Captain
But UNCLOS does afford artificial islands within an EEZ a safety zone of 500 meters around them. So for those that were not natural land features above high tide, they could still get 500 meters factoring in the potential EEZ of Taiping.
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Before UNCLOS a nation cannot make claim to body of water beside territorial shore line.
That changed with UNCLOS with the acceptance of EEZ. Both are based on a baseline which is natural formation that is above waters at high tide.
The land PRC is claim is not nor the open sea that is 200 miles from any shorelines within the 9 dash line.
That's exactly what I said.
Interesting aspects, I'd be interested to see this visualized on a map
SamuraiBlue
Captain
They require to be above water during high tide which I believe they were not. So reclaimed land based on those reefs does not support any territorial claims.
Note my post on the last page: China's acceptance of UNCLOS means they're interpreting it as applying to the islands within the 9 dashed line which were "always" their "sovereign" territory.
In other words, the Chinese interpretation is that the islands are sovereign Chinese territory within the nine dash line... probably similar in the same way that say, Hawaii is sovereign US territory despite being so far from the US continental coast, or how Okinotorishima is sovereign Japanese territory despite being so far from the Japanese main island's coast.
From that perspective it is possible to reconcile the nine dashed line as well as UNCLOS.
joshuatree
Captain
Except China is not an exception with States making declarations when signing onto UNCLOS that includes a list of caveats that don't conform to UNCLOS in its entirety. So if China is to be crucified on this account, all other countries need to be.
And an example of another State not recognizing the right of another State's military to freely conduct operations within it's EEZ. I would like the see the US buzz around in the Indian EEZ and see what they say.
I don't know why lines crossing out the wording appear near the bottom of my post.
joshuatree
Captain
Some are, Fiery Cross is one of them.
Brumby
Major
The LOS convention was put in place to settle disputes between states such as this and within that convention it outlines very specific conditions in which disputes are assessed and resolved. Specifically claims based on historic "rights"; "title"; or "water" are generally excluded except under very narrow conditions. The text and drafting history of the Convention make clear that, apart from a narrow category of near-shore "‘historic’ bays" (Article 10) and "historic title" in the context of territorial sea boundary delimitation (Article 15), the modern international law of the sea does not recognize history as the basis for maritime jurisdiction.
In other words, the nine dash line has no international legal foundation to stand on, and precisely why China has been asked to lay out its legal premise regarding its claim. As is, China is making up its own rules but at the same time not explaining what exactly is its premise.