Carry over conversation from another thread.
Yes I am attempting to decouple them. Logically, for the purposes of this discussion at least, one must decouple them, otherwise it is materially misleading regarding China's actions and its intentions. I explain this at the end of the post.
The fact that international law does not differentiate them does not mean that we, as astute observers cannot point out illogical statements that seek to hide behind international law for misinformation.
Established international laws are implicitly grounded in logic, reason, customs, et al developed and tested over a long history for without it there will be international chaos. I think for you to imply that somehow international laws as related to our topic of discussion is a source for misinformation and illogical statements require you to substantiate beyond mere assertion if you wish to decouple the conversation between military and civilian vessels pertaining to FON. At a minimum, you need to point out the illogical statements; explain why they are illogical; and finally establish the source of the problem is connected to the laws itself.
In my view you cannot decouple the conversation for the following reasons :
Legally, the laws of the seas do not differentiate between civilian and military vessels pertaining to freedom of navigation in the high seas. The concept of freedom of the seas date back centuries and is grounded in the concept that the high seas is a global commons and freedom to navigate is established by the principle of De Mare Liberum.
In terms of historical practice, FON is about access and freedom to navigate and the antithesis of it is by forceful means of preventing such freedom. As such, FON is always about the military ensuring access by testing, securing and preventing any artificial means to deny access either coercively or through intimidation. Historically it is the role of military vessels to challenge any denial of FON. The fact that military vessels are used for this purpose is out of practical reality and is simple logic because a military vessel has the capability to enforce unlike the role and responsibility of the civilian vessel. If a military vessel with its capability to gain access is denied than it is highly questionable whether the conditions exist for a civilian vessel to do so. It is a logical sequence where the horse is before the cart. What you are attempting to do is to argue for the cart before the horse by continuously pointing out that there are no incidents of FON issue with civilian vessels. In fact I have conveniently left out the Scarborough issues where fishing vessels are being denied access but I would leave it out for the time being as not to complicate the conversation. The bottom line is that you cannot have a moving cart without the horse. .
Finally, philosophically FON in the high seas is about ensuring the appropriate conditions exist to freely navigate. The conditions are independent of whether they are a military or civilian vessel because the high seas is a global common that does not differentiate.
So therefore you are implicitly agreeing that China has not sought to establish conditions of freedom of navigation regarding civilian vessels...
This point is irrelevant as explained above as it is a condition subsequent consideration. The main test is whether the acts have the potential to hinder FON are present and which we have seen prima facie evidence. Whether it will lead to eventual hindrance as a policy is premature, unnecessary and out of context in our discussions.
and you also agree that it is not in the US's interests for China to have the capability to do so if the necessity ever arose...
This statement is irrelevant from my standpoint because in a lawful and orderly society, every party has to abide by the rules no matter how unpleasant it may be. In my view China needs to establish legitimacy in its claims and that is by following the mechanism that is prescribed within UNCLOS. If it is established that it has sovereignty, then it can do whatever it needs to as any sovereign nation as governed by the UN charter. Under such circumstance, the US has to respect the situation no matter how unpleasant it might be for it. Currently, China has no legitimacy to impose any restrictions because the issue is unresolved. It is simply exercising might is right as an approach.
But hey, we were never debating about the ability to constrain civilian, we were debating the evidence for China intending to limit civilian FON as justification for describing them as a threat to FON of all kinds of vessels. And for that, you have no leg to stand on, because China has never physically acted in such a way to restrict FON of civilian vessels and they have never stated any desire to do so, so unless you want to equate the ability to restrict civilian FON as the intention, well then I refer you back to this doctrine that you supposedly follow:
I don’t recall I have ever offered a view that China was in fact limiting FON on civilian vessels as a debating point. My position has consistently been about FON – period.
Because civilian ships and military ships are fundamentally different (do you need me to "present a case" for why they're different?)?
Because China has not sought to challenge any civilian vehicle's FON up to the present?
The provisions within UNCLOS governing FON only talks of “threat to use force” and “peaceful purpose”. It does not differentiate between civilian and military vessels. The conduct of military activities does not automatically fail the test of peaceful purpose and this is clearly established within UNCLOS and by UN resolutions. You are attempting to overturn normal convention by your reasoning and your attempt at decoupling.
Because the suggestion that China would seek to challenge the FON of civilian vehicle's makes no sense for its economy given it is the largest trading nation on earth and the largest trading partner of virtually all its regional neighbours, and limiting FON would limit its own trade?
Because if one does imply that China is challenging the FON of all vehicles, and if one looks at the few challenges they have issued in the past and the types of vehicles they have issued it to, it is disingenuous if not outright lying to claim that China is a threat or a challenge to FON of all types of vehicles, when facts up to the present are only suggestive that a particular, obvious subset of vehicles (military) were challenged?
Because if one implies China is challenge FON of all vehicles (rather than only military vehicles in certain limited ways), then that would mislead other nations and observers into thinking it is more aggressive than it actually is?
I think I have adequately addressed this in my above comments.
(btw now that I go back to the P-8 incident, the name of the zone was actually a "military alert zone" not a "military exclusion zone". Given you were insistent on equating exclusion as restriction, what would you equate "alert" to?)
There is a saying that if it walks and quacks like a duck it is a duck. I am surprised that you are still labouring on it.
