South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Brumby said:

UK requests observer status in legal dispute over South China Sea islands

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Military Capabilities
United States enacts 'South China Sea Initiative'

Jon Grevatt, Bangkok - IHS Jane's Defence Industry
25 November 2015

US President Barack Obama signed into law on 25 November the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, providing legal framework for the United States to expand defence trade and related collaboration with countries in Southeast Asia.

The legislation introduces a 'South China Sea Initiative' through which the US Secretary of Defense is authorised, in concurrence with the Secretary of State, to undertake activities intended to "increase maritime security and maritime domain awareness of foreign countries along the South China Sea".

The law outlines a requirement for the United States to provide assistance to "national military or other security forces of such countries that have among their functional responsibilities maritime security missions; and to provide training to ministry, agency, and headquarter-level organisations for such forces".

To read the full article, Client Login
(126 of 468 words)

Click to expand...

​

Naval Today said:

The U.S. Navy’s destroyer USS Stethem teamed with People’s Liberation Army-Navy PLA(N) guided-missile frigate Xuzhou (FFG 530) to practice the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) and conduct a search-and-rescue (SAR) exercise on November 20.

The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile ship, Stethem (DDG 63) concluded a scheduled port visit to PLA(N) East Sea Fleet of Shanghai that same day, where crew members of both ships took part in cultural exchanges, ship tours and receptions.

Lieutenant Erika Betancourt, Stethem’s operations officer, said:

This is our second visit to China in three months, the strides we have made in our partnership and operational cooperation improve both our ability to conduct exercises and our interactions at sea.

CUES, a set of procedures endorsed by naval leaders at the Western Pacific Naval Symposium in April 2014, is a guideline for unplanned maritime encounters while at sea, providing standards for communication, safety procedures, and maneuvering instructions for naval ships and aircraft.

Stethem and Xuzhou rendezvoused and used CUES as a signaling protocol to indicate ship maneuvering, and passed Morse code to one another.

In the later course of the exercise, Xuzhou dropped a search-and-rescue dummy in the water, which was then retrieved by one of Stethem’s small boats.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

Manila hopeful of SCS law suit win at the ICJ, but it's not clear how China's opt out will affect the status quo, even if Philippines win the case.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The Philippines has asked the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague to affirm its right to areas within 200 nautical miles of its coastline, under the terms of a U.N. convention.

Click to expand...

joshuatree said:

This becomes a loaded statement because even the Court's earlier jurisdiction ruling made the caveat that the 200 NM boundary is subject to any potential overlap. And since the Philippines made the case viable by not asking for any territorial/sovereignty determinations, the ruling will be muddled and based on a lot of hypotheticals.

I haven't kept track of every reported confrontation and much less confrontations that go unreported. But giving the benefit of the doubt that reported confrontations are verified, how many times when the Chinese were preventing the FIlipinos from fishing, it occurred beyond 12 NM from features that are disputed? How many of the confrontations take place beyond 200 NM from Taiping Island? Also, when discussing the issue of being prevented fishing, which incidents are actually by a govt vessel as opposed to what sometimes are vigilante fishermen.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

Since China exercised its right to opt out of involuntary arbitration, did the Arbitration Court overreach in claiming jurisdiction? If not, then what good are international treaties with opt out clauses if the courts ignore them (yes, it's a rhetorical question)?

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

China exercised opt out on arbitration over sovereignty determination. The Philippines purposely positioned its submissions before the International tribunal on matters of interpretation of provisions. In this regard, the tribunal has jurisdiction, its decisions are final and binding on all. I don't understand why this subject keeps on popping up. I don't believe the legal language is ambiguous on this point as it requires just plain comprehension. As to some of the more contentious submissions by the Philippines, we should be patient to wait for the outcome from the tribunal whether they accept those arguments or it gets thrown out. There is a structured process and path. It is not some wild wild west in belligerence.

Click to expand...