South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

I believe one of the key tenet of UNCLOS is a dispute resolution mechanism. However based on the construction and wording of UNCLOS and the deliberation proceedings during drafting of the provisions, I don't believe your view will prevail if brought before the International Courts. Such interpretation and restriction to FON were rejected by the majority during the draft proceedings. Presumably the courts would look into these factors.

Blackstone said:

Didn't PRC opt out of some portions of UNCLOS at the time of signing? Did the nations that objected to Beijing register their objections? Did the UN register its objections or was it acceptable for nations to opt out of portions, as long as it's done clearly and upfront?

Click to expand...

PRC opt out of the 4 specified dispute mechanisms as prescribed by UNCLOS. That doesn't mean PRC is not subject to the dispute mechanism provision and is an important point not generally understood.

Blackstone said:

Didn't PRC opt out of some portions of UNCLOS at the time of signing? Did the nations that objected to Beijing register their objections? Did the UN register its objections or was it acceptable for nations to opt out of portions, as long as it's done clearly and upfront?

Click to expand...

Opting out only means objecting to which ever clause the nation had opted out BUT does not mean the signatories will accept and respect them especially when it violates another nation's claim and privilege that the treaty had ratified.

Brumby said:

PRC opt out of the 4 specified dispute mechanisms as prescribed by UNCLOS. That doesn't mean PRC is not subject to the dispute mechanism provision and is an important point not generally understood.

Click to expand...

Which particular articles or sections are you referring in within UNCLOS that you interpret as PRC is subject to dispute mechanism? Thanks.

SamuraiBlue said:

Opting out only means objecting to which ever clause the nation had opted out BUT does not mean the signatories will accept and respect them especially when it violates another nation's claim and privilege that the treaty had ratified.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that make UNCLOS ineffective and worthless? One has a right to opt out but it doesn't have to be respected by others if they feel so? So it's not a real opt out but even though it says you can opt out? Sure sounds like a scam.

Brumby said:

I believe one of the key tenet of UNCLOS is a dispute resolution mechanism. However based on the construction and wording of UNCLOS and the deliberation proceedings during drafting of the provisions, I don't believe your view will prevail if brought before the International Courts. Such interpretation and restriction to FON were rejected by the majority during the draft proceedings. Presumably the courts would look into these factors.

Click to expand...

The reality of the situation is 33 countries have different interpretations from current norm of 8 countries, including SCS claimants China, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam. Therefore, it's unrealistic to believe resolution could be had by any means short of negotiated compromise, probably through a derivative of UNCLOS.

Brumby said:

PRC opt out of the 4 specified dispute mechanisms as prescribed by UNCLOS. That doesn't mean PRC is not subject to the dispute mechanism provision and is an important point not generally understood.

Click to expand...

And what about the countries that specifically opted out of binding arbitration? What justification is there to legally compel those nations to accept provisions they clearly and openly opted out of? "Because they have to" doesn't cut it.

China sees a distinction between Civilian Vessels & Military Vessels within EEZ as it relates to FON and is raising it based on security related interests. The United States obviously (currently) does not share the same view based on it's own interests and is enforcing it's position. This is a serious, real-world, point of contention and discussion between the parties.

You cannot dismiss the dynamic of Civilian versus Military FON transit within EEZ, for the simple reason that it is a part of the current geopolitical discussion at play. It's also pretty clear why China would want to draw a distinction between the two types of shipping and why painting China as a threat to the principles of FON, full-stop, is just silly propaganda for the uninformed.

Now you can take whichever position you like regarding the above and debate current maritime law ad nauseam... But real fact is that the only law subject to eternal constant is the law of nature. The laws of men come and go and are changed with regularity. I suspect China's views on this will find their way into global policy, in some part, over the coming years.

It is recently reported that China intends to armed some of is merchant vessels (numbers unknown) with weapons (cannons, missiles etc.?). If the report is correct, I wonder why this is necessary as there are already considerable numbers of PLA-N and China Coast Guard armed vessels. Armed Merchant Vessels (AMVs) were commandeered & refitted with weapons during WW II in the Far East by the RN when there were dire need of warships in Southeast Asia. Britain's priority at that time was to deter Nazi Germany's invasion of its homeland. Could it be similar to China's guerrilla strategies for land warfare; i.e. China's sea maritime strategy would include deploying massive numbers of all imaginable vessels against adversaries?

advill said:

It is recently reported that China intends to armed some of is merchant vessels (numbers unknown) with weapons (cannons, missiles etc.?). If the report is correct, I wonder why this is necessary as there are already considerable numbers of PLA-N and China Coast Guard armed vessels. Armed Merchant Vessels (AMVs) were commandeered & refitted with weapons during WW II in the Far East by the RN when there were dire need of warships in Southeast Asia. Britain's priority at that time was to deter Nazi Germany's invasion of its homeland. Could it be similar to China's guerrilla strategies for land warfare; i.e. China's sea maritime strategy would include deploying massive numbers of all imaginable vessels against adversaries?

Click to expand...

? I have not heard anything like that... I think what you're talking about is China seeking to have cargo ships that can be used by the military? Specifically, Ro-Ro ships?



Such ships will be used for military sealift if called upon, they would likely not be armed and certainly will not be armed during peacetime. The idea of arming civilian vessels during peacetime is ridiculous and makes no sense. Arming such vessels during wartime with anything more than say, CIWS, would also be a waste given they are better mounted for actual warships which have the necessary subsystems to make effective use of them, and for civilian ships to be better used as dedicated sealift ships.

Note, this is not exactly unique. Ships Taken Up From Trade/STUFT have been used by many navies for sealift or auxiliary roles. During the gulf war, falklands, etc, the use of STUFT and chartered civilian ships was common to supplement dedicated military ships.

---

this is a list of all (or some) of the chartered civilian ships used in the gulf war for sealift