The exact meaning of such a compromise treaty will determined at the hand of experience with it. The original meaning of freedom of navigation was changed by the introduction of the three mile territorial sea. The US position should be strong because of its huge navy but is seriously weakened by its refusal to sign and ratify the treaty.
South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)
- Thread starter PanAsian
- Start date
Blackstone
Brigadier
Alright, let's skip opinions and look only at UNCLOS. Since FON isn't used in it, let's go with "innocent passage instead." It's true UNCLOS treats military and civilian ships the same, but in reality, military and quasi-military ships have different rules under Article 19 (section 2-c could be troublesome for intelligence gathering vessels):
What I'm trying to point out is UNCLOS isn't clear if military and civilian ships are treated the same all of the time, or only some of the time, and where there's ambiguity, nations will use it to their advantage.
Brumby
Major
In order to ensure that we are not talking pass each other I think it is important to establish the context of the conversation so that we start on the same platform. Article 19 specifically deals with or attempts to define the meaning of "innocent passage". Having said that, it is important to be reminded that demonstration of "innocent passage" is only a requirement for transit within territorial seas. The notion of "innocent passage" has no relevance when discussing FON in the context of the high seas and in my view that includes the EEZ.
Can you please clarify what is the context and objective of the conversation.
Blackstone
Brigadier
My two objectives are replace "FON" with "innocent passage" in UNCLOS discussions, since the latter term is what's in the text, and show evidence in UNCLOS for decoupling of military and civilian vessels in certain circumstances.
Brumby
Major
The problem as I understand your statement correctly is that you are attempting to create a conversation not reflective of the provisions within UNCLOS. "Innocent passage" is connected with transit within territorial seas. There is no concept of "innocent passage" within the high seas. Conversely, there is no FON within territorial seas, just "innocent passage".
SamuraiBlue
Captain
UNCLOS states clearly that innocent passage where another flag ship is responsible not to show any provocation, is within territorial waters. Within EEZ it's safe passage where the nation who administrate the region is responsible to provide safe passage to other flag ship commerce or otherwise within the region.
Your argument was denied when UNCLOS Ⅲ was ratified which PRC is a signatory of.
Blackstone
Brigadier
We're in agreement Article 19 specifically addresses territorial waters where FON isn't used.
Blackstone
Brigadier
What is your opinion of nations that opt out of some UNCLOS portions, while accepting others?
joshuatree
Captain
Media usually has only reported Sand Cay and West Reef as areas of Vietnamese reclamation. But aside from that, we've seen pics of Cornwallis South Reef and Sin Cowe Island. I think there's more.
Pearson Reef
Pearson Reef
joshuatree
Captain
Here are Vietnam's lighthouses.
Southwest Cay - built 1993
Ladd Reef - built 1994
West London Reef
