South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Blackstone said:

Here's the link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Your earlier quote was :

Blackstone said:

If you're talking about the artificial islands, then according to Barack Obama himself, China hasn't violated international laws.

Click to expand...

The link that you provided quote Obama saying "And it may be some of their claims are legitimate".
They are completely different things. Obama is simply acknowledging that some of China's claims may be legitimate. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that there may be legitimacy to China's claims in the SCS just as there may be legitimacy of claims by the other claimants.
My comments are specifically about artificial islands.

Blackstone said:

You only listed one of the pertinent sections of international law, but since the International Court of Justice hasn't rendered any decision on Philippine's law suit against China. It's not even clear if the ICJ has jurisdiction, You and many others have opined China can't opt out, and that's your right, but the decision is up to the ICJ and until it hands down a ruling, no one could say with legal force China has broken any international law.

Click to expand...

You are conflating the issues. UNCOS clearly states artificial islands do not accord territorial rights. It has nothing to do with arbitration which concerns dispute over sovereignty.

Deleted: double post

Brumby said:

Your earlier quote was :

The link that you provided quote Obama saying "And it may be some of their claims are legitimate".
They are completely different things. Obama is simply acknowledging that some of China's claims may be legitimate. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that there may be legitimacy to China's claims in the SCS just as there may be legitimacy of claims by the other claimants.
My comments are specifically about artificial islands.

Click to expand...

What claims could Obama possibly be talking about? China only claims the land within its 9-dash line, what else is there?

You are conflating the issues. UNCOS clearly states artificial islands do not accord territorial rights. It has nothing to do with arbitration which concerns dispute over sovereignty.

Click to expand...

The problem is, China hasn't officially claimed anything other than what international laws allow. Do you have information to the contrary?

PS- I messed up my original response (poor editing prior to 20 minutes expiration time), so please excuse the atrocious writing.

Blackstone said:

I quoted from this Military.com article on USN near China's artificial island:
US Navy Hasn't Sailed or Flown Near China's Manmade Islands Since 2012

Click to expand...

Well, in the article, they make two statements.

Military.com said:

The U.S.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

hasn't sailed or flown near China's manmade islands in the South China Sea since 2012, an official said.

The last time the sea service conducted a freedom of navigation operation within a dozen nautical miles of China's artificial islands...

Click to expand...

The first statements says they haven't conducted operations near the islands. I pointed out where they have sailed near them. And they are wrong about the flights too...we all saw the P-8 flight picutures near the islands and those were within 12 miles.

The second sentence says within 12 miles...and that is correct. There was no need to back then. It was not an issue.

So, the UIS has already made two trips into the SCS near the islands. Now that the 12-mile limit is an issue, they will, on the third trip, come within 12 miles.

In 2012, there were no artificial islands...just structures on reefs and shoals.

Jeff Head said:

Well, in the article, they make two statements.



The first statements says they haven't conducted operations near the islands. I pointed out where they have sailed near them. And they are wrong about the flights too...we all saw the P-8 flight picutures near the islands and those were within 12 miles.

The second sentence says within 12 miles...and that is correct. There was no need to back then. It was not an issue.

So, the UIS has already made two trips into the SCS near the islands. Now that the 12-mile limit is an issue, they will, on the third trip, come within 12 miles.

In 2012, there were no artificial islands...just structures on reefs and shoals.

Click to expand...

You're right. Per the link below, land reclamation in 2012 was by Vietnam. Maybe military.com confused the two.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. Board of Geographic Names: West Reef
Chinese: Xi Jiao (西礁)
Philippine: Kanlurang Quezon
Vietnamese: Đá Tây

Vietnam is believed to have controlled West Reef without interruption since 1975. Vietnam built a lighthouse on the reef in May or June of 1994 and built various military structures throughout the feature in the years that followed. Beginning in August 2012, the reef has been the site of extensive land reclamation and construction with additional facilities and a harbor being built.

Blackstone said:

What claims could Obama possibly be talking about? China only claims the land within its 9-dash line, what else is there?

Click to expand...

Disputed islands. In contrast I am talking about artificial ones - those that did not exist until recently.

Blackstone said:

The problem is, China hasn't officially claimed anything other than what international laws allow. Do you have information to the contrary?

Click to expand...

Since you wish to adopt such an approach, I will let it address your own questions. UNCLOS doesn't provide for territorial seas around artificial structures. If you insist that China hasn't claimed anything outside international laws, then the 12 nm zone doesn't exist around these artificial structures. If it doesn't exist then the FON is a non issue. This whole conversation is then a non starter. You just have to make up your mind which side of the argument you want to take. You can't have it both ways.

Brumby said:

Disputed islands. In contrast I am talking about artificial ones - those that did not exist until recently.

Click to expand...

Exactly! And it stands to reason that's what Obama was talking about too when he said China might have legit claims.

Since you wish to adopt such an approach, I will let it address your own questions. UNCLOS doesn't provide for territorial seas around artificial structures. If you insist that China hasn't claimed anything outside international laws, then the 12 nm zone doesn't exist around these artificial structures. If it doesn't exist then the FON is a non issue. This whole conversation is then a non starter. You just have to make up your mind which side of the argument you want to take. You can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

I haven't tried to have it both ways, since I've consistently said China's artificial islands don't get 12 or even 3 miles territorial waters, only 500 meter safety zones. I'm also consistent in saying Beijing is the primary barrier to SCS resolution because it wouldn't clarify its 9DL.

My claim is US FON operation is an important issue, because it's an attempt to affirm US military primacy and to assuage China's maritime neighbors US could still be counted on to protect them. It's all part of what Obama calls "who leads" in Asia.

Brumby said:

My comments are specifically about artificial islands.



You are conflating the issues. UNCOS clearly states artificial islands do not accord territorial rights. It has nothing to do with arbitration which concerns dispute over sovereignty.

Click to expand...

Okay, but I think just addressing artificial islands in one lump grouping is still too vague for the issue at hand. So far, it seems most of the back and forth between China and the US is centered around Fiery Cross Reef because it's the first one to have an almost completed runway. FCR is noted as having two rocks above high tide in its natural state which would categorize the feature as a rock and UNCLOS does afford rocks their own territorial sea. While not part of UNCLOS, international law corresponds sovereign airspace with the maritime definition of territorial waters. So in this instance, the Chinese are not violating international law.

If anyone has details about encounters at other features not known to be rocks in their natural state, I would love to get the links and read up on them.

Blackstone said:

I haven't tried to have it both ways, since I've consistently said China's artificial islands don't get 12 or even 3 miles territorial waters, only 500 meter safety zones.

Click to expand...

I would point out though some of these artificial islands were built on real rocks so they are afforded 12 NM based on their original form, not necessarily because of all the newly minted stuff.

I don't know where the 3 NM is coming from though. I believe decades ago, that was the generally agreed upon limit of the territorial sea but has been pushed out to 12 NM since.

joshuatree said:

I would point out though some of these artificial islands were built on real rocks so they are afforded 12 NM based on their original form, not necessarily because of all the newly minted stuff.

I don't know where the 3 NM is coming from though. I believe decades ago, that was the generally agreed upon limit of the territorial sea but has been pushed out to 12 NM since.

Click to expand...

The enlarged real SCS islands would get 12 mile territorial waters, and that's not in dispute.