Jura The idiot
General
LOL hold it, if I answer the question you asked 1 minute ago, will you answer what I ask you 30 minutes ago
?
please react to this so that I know if to proceed, thank you
South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)
- Thread starter PanAsian
- Start date
?
please react to this so that I know if to proceed, thank you
Jura The idiot
General
you asked "so what does the article say?"
and the context is
so the answer is "Lorenzana said China did not ask for permission to send several warships through the Sibutu Strait at the southern tip of the Philippine archipelago on four occasions between February and July." inside Beijing tells Duterte it won’t honor South China Sea ruling
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Jura you should read the article clearly it is not territorial water because the width of the straits is 29 km and it is international water
For the clarification of many, Sibuto Strait is a narrow passageway with an 29-kilometer distance separating the Philippine island of Tawi Tawi and Borneo. The Washington Treaty on November 7, 1900 delineated Cagayan, Sulu and Sibutu as the boundary of the archipelago acquired by the US from Spain. The Sibuto Strait is recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as an international waterway where ships of all flags, through customary international law, enjoy the right of innocent passage.
In the West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, it defines a strait as a narrow body of water connecting two areas of the high seas, and is used in international navigation. There shall be no suspension or stoppage of foreign ships passing through the strait. Because of the acuteness of the international waterway, vessels passing though it cannot avoid “trespassing” or “violating” the territorial waters of the adjacent state which, under international law, extends up to 12 miles. As customary practice, passing vessels are allowed with certain limitations that they cannot suspend/stop from navigating while within the passageway.
and what was the problem? my view is it probably happened and the rest is in the article you posted. Are you saying the Lorenzana needs to give permission? please thank you
After the accidental ramming of our fishing boat by an unidentified Chinese vessel near the disputed Scarborough Shoal, which saw the local media howling like toddlers in decrying the incident as “bullying” and Leni Robredo cashing in for media mileage, now here we go again protesting the passage of Chinese warships, led by China’s aircraft carrier CV-16 Liaoning, claiming to have violated our territorial waters by passing through the Sibutu Strait and Balabac Island without prior notification.
According to Western Military Command Chief, Lt. Gen. Carlito Sobejana, there have been 13 instances of Chinese warships passing through the narrow strait since June 2019, and in all instances, the Chinese warships turned off their automatic identification system and could not be contacted though radio.
As described by National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon, there has lately been a “swarming” of Chinese vessels in and around the islands occupied by the Philippines in the South China Sea. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana then suggested to President Rodrigo Duterte to take up the matter with President Xi Jinping during his visit to China.
For the clarification of many, Sibuto Strait is a narrow passageway with an 29-kilometer distance separating the Philippine island of Tawi Tawi and Borneo. The Washington Treaty on November 7, 1900 delineated Cagayan, Sulu and Sibutu as the boundary of the archipelago acquired by the US from Spain. The Sibuto Strait is recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as an international waterway where ships of all flags, through customary international law, enjoy the right of innocent passage.
In the West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, it defines a strait as a narrow body of water connecting two areas of the high seas, and is used in international navigation. There shall be no suspension or stoppage of foreign ships passing through the strait. Because of the acuteness of the international waterway, vessels passing though it cannot avoid “trespassing” or “violating” the territorial waters of the adjacent state which, under international law, extends up to 12 miles. As customary practice, passing vessels are allowed with certain limitations that they cannot suspend/stop from navigating while within the passageway.
The fact that some straits have become necessity to international shipping, commerce and navigation, international law conventions “internationalized” them, and that includes the Sibutu Strait. Permission or clearance for passage from the adjacent or host states is no longer necessary. The internationalization of the strait by customary practice or through convention such as our ratification of the UNCLOS has somewhat made the host country or adjacent state to partially lost their right to claim full jurisdiction on those waters adjacent to their shoreline like preventing those vessels passing through, just as vessels can assert their right to innocent passage.
The passage of Chinese warships through the Sibutu Strait and Balabac Island may have traversed our territorial waters. Even that, there is no need for us to enact a law that would declare the Strait an international waterway as suggested by Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio. Such proposal would only make us ridiculous, more so if the intent of the law is to selectively allow and/or prevent other vessels from passing through it. Our ratification of the UNCLOS is more than enough to commit us to the free passage of navigation under international law.
It was rather exaggerated for Esperon to characterize the number of Chinese vessels in the South China Sea as “swarming.” Maybe he has his in mind bees attacking us from all sides. The Chinese vessels simply navigated through the strait which we uncannily are making a loud noise of protestations. Other warships—US, Australia, the UK and Japanese navieshave been passing through it but we never made an issue of their passage, for understandably, they are our allies and have not violated the conditions regarding the right of innocent passage.
It would be undiplomatic for President Duterte to take up the matter of Chinese warships with China’s President Xi Jinping.
First, the subject matter of passage is trivial that China did not even consider that an incident, except of course for those anti-Chinese hecklers. Second, China would be appalled at our move much that Chinese vessels complied the rules concerning the passage of vessels in straits enjoying the right of innocent passage. Third, clearance and permission from the host state is not required under the UNCLOS. Fourth, to insist on our new regulation would unduly strain our relations with China to the delight of the US.
In fact, the US Navy has been crisscrossing the Philippine archipelago anytime of the year, ignoring our archipelagic doctrine, plying through the great bodies of territorial waters separating the islands of Palawan, Negros and Mindanao, and using as their passageway to enter the South China Sea though the narrow channel separating Sorsogon and Samar in San Bernardino, and the Bashi Channel that separates Taiwan and the Philippines.
Moreover, we cannot even compel the US navy that before entering Philippine territory, to declare that its warships do not carry any nuclear weapons pursuant to Section 5, Article II of the Constitution. Rather, the US merely refuses to confirm or deny such query from the Philippine government.
According to Presidential Spokesman Salvador Panelo, “Beginning today, all foreign vessels passing through our territorial waters must notify and get clearance from the proper government authority. “Either we get compliance in a friendly manner or we enforce it in an unfriendly manner.” But did it not come to his mind as lawyer that we do not have that right to demand compliance under the UNCLOS convention? Panelo even failed to anticipate that diplomatic protocol demand that vessels passing through the strait should observe the rules and limitations, and not for the sovereign state to seek the permission of the host state. This is assumed because countries that geographically have narrow straits and is used by countries for international navigation as members of UNCLOS know the rules upon which passing vessels must observe.
The howl made by Lorenzana, Carpio and Batongbacal are misplaced. Some suspect that their noise is intended to embarrass the President. Batongbacal as head of the UP Institute for Maritime Affairs should know what he is talking about. Vessels passing through an international waterway need not seek permission from the host state or much would more for states to give its consent because their adherence and ratification of the convention already amounts to that. In fact, we can even say that it should be the US that should be prevented from passing through the Sibuto Strait for the simple logic that it has refused to ratify the UNCLOS, and that means it rejects all the provisions regarding the use of straits and inland navigable rivers.
[email protected]
Jura The idiot
General
after a quick google search
:
Palace 'concerned' over China ships in Sibutu Strait
make whatever conclusion you will
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
I think you and Phillipine politician are confusing economic zone passage with passing thru straits That is 2 different thing Passing thru a narrow straits is governed by the international law known as "International Law of Straits" confirmed by ruling of ICJ but the new unclos of 12 mile territorial water conflict with this law. But they reaffirmed the innocent passage principle So no need for permission or notification
Ultimately, a compromise was reached with the creation of the new transit passage regime for vessels and aircraft. The compromise preserved open corridors of unimpeded passage for vessels and offered the littoral state more regulatory rights over foreign-flagged vessels than it could exercise over the high seas but less than provided by the customary right of innocent passage in the territorial sea.
International Law of Straits
a. Legal Rights of Passage
As the narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz is twenty-one nautical miles, all vessels passing through the Strait must traverse the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. The rights of passage for foreign vessels under international law will consequently be subject to either the rules of non-suspendable innocent passage or transit passage depending on the applicable legal regime, as discussed below.
The legal regime of passage through straits was first addressed in the landmark Corfu Channel case, which also happened to be the first case brought before the International Court of Justice (âICJâ). The ICJ confirmed the customary international law rule, used in international navigation, that foreign warships have the right of innocent passage in straits during peacetime. This rule of non-suspendable innocent passage for all vessels was subsequently codified in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone (â1958 Geneva Conventionâ). Essentially, this meant that during peacetime the coastal state could only prohibit the passage of any foreign-flagged vessel if its passage was non-innocent.
Until the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (âUNCLOS IIIâ), the passage regime used in international navigation was ânon-suspendable innocent passageâ in territorial waters of a coastal state and freedom of passage in the high seas. However, during UNCLOS III, efforts to increase the breadth of the territorial sea from 3 nm to 12 nm brought strong opposition from the maritime powers, especially the United States. The United States refused to accept the diminution of high seas freedoms in straitsâover which coastal states had no legal rights to regulate passage or activitiesâthat would result from a 12-nm territorial sea. If accepted, the 12-nm territorial sea would reduce the area of high seas freedom of passage in several important straits used in international navigation and replace it with the more restrictive innocent passage regime. Ultimately, a compromise was reached with the creation of the new transit passage regime for vessels and aircraft. The compromise preserved open corridors of unimpeded passage for vessels and offered the littoral state more regulatory rights over foreign-flagged vessels than it could exercise over the high seas but less than provided by the customary right of innocent passage in the territorial sea.
However, some questioned the adequacy of the transit passage regime to satisfy U.S. national security needs, a maritime power with strong interests in safeguarding freedom of high seas passage. Concerned over possible restrictions on navigational rights in areas beyond 3 nm, in 1979, the United States established the Freedom of Navigation Program. Since then, the United States has actively defended its navigational rights in zones where it has deemed maritime claims excessive, as well as in important strategic straits such as Hormuz, Malacca, and Gibraltar.
b. Innocent Passage Versus Transit Passage Rights
When signing UNCLOS, Iran declared that it would apply the transit passage regime only to those states that had ratified the convention. As to other states, such as the United States, it would apply the provisions of the 1958 Geneva Convention. Importantly, regardless of the differences between these two rules of passage, both instruments prohibit the unjustified blocking of passage of all vessels.
According to UNCLOS, the transit passage regime applies to âstraits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.â Iran, by its own declaration, is obliged to respect the transit passage rights of all vessels flying the flag of states party to UNCLOS, both commercial and military. Likewise, these ships, including foreign-flagged military vessels engaged in transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz, must abide by the applicable provisions of UNCLOS, customary international law, and the United Nations Charter.
What then are the rights and duties of the coastal state and of vessels in the Strait of Hormuz? Transit passage is defined as the âexercise . . . of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the straits between one of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or exclusive economic zones.âFurthermore, all ships and aircraft enjoy the rights of unimpeded transit passage. As for coastal states, UNCLOS Article 44 provides that âStates bordering straits shall not hamper transit passage and shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation or overflight within or over the strait of which they have knowledge. There shall be no suspension of transit passage.â The UNCLOS III compromise gave the coastal states authority to establish sea lanes or traffic separation schemes in straits, subject to the agreement of other states that border the strait and after submission to and adoption of the scheme by the competent international organization, i.e., the International Maritime Organization (âIMOâ).
Jura The idiot
General
the previous page
(saying because at first I wondered if there was yet another FONOP after Wednesday at 7:31 PM)
Brumby
Major
The article was dated Sept 1 which I thought would be a recent exercise. Did not realised you already posted a few days ago. Sorry. Too many FONOPs under the Trump administration. Difficult to keep current. Lol.