US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Bltizo said:
Who knows, but the nature of international laws means if China seriously wants to change it, it would have to wait a few decades until it has far more influence.

It's good that we can agree that the EEZ issue is not settled.
Click to expand...
I'm consistent in believing FON operations in EEZs isn't settled legally, and that China may be right on the issue. However, there's the status quo, and it's established norm those that want to overturn the status quo must show cause (China relentlessly point to status quo disturbance against Japan and Philippines). In this day and age, where do most nations go to get due process? The International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Now we come to great powers, and all bets are off. I appreciate Beijing's efforts to be vague and stall until they are so big, so powerful no one can challenge them without harming their important national interests. I get it; it's what great powers do. God help us.
 
J

Janiz

Senior Member
Blackstone said:
The dirty little secret is US would blow its top if Chinese warships regularly patrol up and down California's coast, because the public outcry would generate political outrage not seen since the Soviet Navy sailed off the US East Coast.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that California is newly reclaimed reef in the waters under international dispute between many countries...
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
Bltizo said:
Jeff, there is a difference, simply based on the fact that the Chinese ships moved through the Alaskan waters expeditiously consistent with what is defined by innocent passage, whereas USS Lassen loitered near the waters of the islands for several hours and had support by at least a USN P-8, in actions which clearly was deliberately different from what is accepted as innocent passage

Again, a definition of innocent passage: "Specifically, it means during an innocent passage a warship can’t launch or recover aircraft, collect military intelligence, distribute propaganda, launch any kind of watercraft, fire weapons, fish or take any other action that is not involved in the direct passage of the ship through the territory of the coastal state."

Also you said "The US recognized that group, despite its size, was not a real threat to US national interests."
Yes, that is also true -- and if the Chinese task group had decided to linger in Alaskan waters or set out some towed sonars or deploy a few helicopters for a few hours, then that would be inconsistent with innocent passage and the US could have protested in the same way that China did.
If USS Lassen had transited quickly through the waters near the islands without air support in a way which is consistent with innocent passage China likely would not have interpreted it as a threat either.
Click to expand...

There are nuances and implications. I don't believe PLAN sailed within 12 NM of the Aleutian Islands after highly publicizing that they will sail through to demonstrate that those islands are not US territory. On the other hand, through various US figures, (senators, admirals, etc), the message being conveyed was the sailing by the USN will be used to demonstrate FON and that those reclaimed features are not sovereign territory. So it's not a stretch to argue that it violates the definition of innocent passage by distributing propaganda.

There are stricter definitions in UNCLOS in regards to territorial sea vs EEZ which is why I believe the US chose to do the FON in less grey areas. Subi and Mischief do not have territorial seas based on lack of natural high tide elevations. Despite what saber rattling done on the Chinese side, they did not intercept and resort to any physical moves such as cutting in front, etc, but shadowed. All in all, both sides claim victory for their respective audiences.

I don't believe any info on how close to the features the USN sailed was ever revealed right? I do think some of the verbiage the Chinese used was overly done but I believe they are trying to indirectly warn the other claimants thinking similar actions.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Janiz said:
I didn't know that California is newly reclaimed reef in the waters under international dispute between many countries...
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? You do understand US had major issues whenever the Soviets established bases near it and sailed its warships near US shores, right?
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Bltizo said:
And that is where the issue of EEZ interpretation of UNCLOS surrounding the issue of military actions and surveillance in a nation's EEZ comes up, and as we have discussed previously, there is a divide regarding this issue between most nations who have been traditionally naval powers, and those who have not been.
Click to expand...
EEZ was introduced in the grand bargain as sui generis. Coastal states got their economic zone (EEZ) and the maritime powers continue to exercise FON within the EEZ. The EEZ was after all the high seas prior to UNCLOS and was carved out as a special zone. That was the agreement. China is attempting to change the facts by introducing it as subject to interpretation. This line is inconsistent with the history of the law of the seas; the deliberations that preceded final agreement; to the text found in UNCLOS; and finally to how international laws are interpreted e.g. Lotus principle. In a rule based environment, the proper course for China is to get UNCLOS changed or move the issue to the International Court because UNCLOS specifically provide such mechanism.
China just need to be consistent with its actions. On one hand it states that military activities are not allowed within EEZ but yet it conducts such activities within other countries EEZ. I can easily give you sources as evidence of such actions.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Brumby said:
EEZ was introduced in the grand bargain as sui generis. Coastal states got their economic zone (EEZ) and the maritime powers continue to exercise FON within the EEZ. The EEZ was after all the high seas prior to UNCLOS and was carved out as a special zone. That was the agreement. China is attempting to change the facts by introducing it as subject to interpretation. This line is inconsistent with the history of the law of the seas; the deliberations that preceded final agreement; to the text found in UNCLOS; and finally to how international laws are interpreted e.g. Lotus principle. In a rule based environment, the proper course for China is to get UNCLOS changed or move the issue to the International Court because UNCLOS specifically provide such mechanism.
Click to expand...

I don't know what position China had on the matter of military ships to conduct surveillance or other activities in EEZ prior or during the implementation of UNCLOS, so whether it is a case of trying to change the facts after the fact, or that the original phrasing of the statements were ambiguous to begin with and allowed for reasonable differing interpretations, is another matter.


China just need to be consistent with its actions. On one hand it states that military activities are not allowed within EEZ but yet it conducts such activities within other countries EEZ. I can easily give you sources as evidence of such actions.
Click to expand...

I agree, though I think China's own surveillance actions are also a bargaining chip in its overall position, kind of like "if you stop then we stop". But as it's said before, China's never going to come out and say it and contest the issue until it reaches a position of power.


Basically we are discussing whether it is reasonable for China and other nations to interpret UNCLOS regarding the EEZ issue in their different ways, and whether it is reasonable for China to not go to court on the issue [until it is more powerful] while also acting in a similar limited way which it believes other nations should not.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Bltizo said:
I don't know what position China had on the matter of military ships to conduct surveillance or other activities in EEZ prior or during the implementation of UNCLOS, so whether it is a case of trying to change the facts after the fact, or that the original phrasing of the statements were ambiguous to begin with and allowed for reasonable differing interpretations, is another matter.
Click to expand...
When China ratified UNCLOS, it knew what it was getting into. You can't pick and choose what you like and ignore other provisions when it doesn't suit you.

In a rule based environment, there are proper ways of doing things. The way China goes out about conducting itself is problematic in my view. It is inconsistent with its actions and interpret things in what ever way it chooses. China simply see the rest of the world as an extension of how it runs its internal affairs.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Brumby said:
When China ratified UNCLOS, it knew what it was getting into. You can't pick and choose what you like and ignore other provisions when it doesn't suit you.
Click to expand...

I don't think China is picking and choosing what it likes -- on the EEZ issue I don't think they are necessarily rejecting any particular clause but rather they interpret it in a different way.

Like I said, were the original clauses phrased in such a way which were ambiguous enough to allow reasonable interpretation in differing ways?


In a rule based environment, there are proper ways of doing things. The way China goes out about conducting itself is problematic in my view. It is inconsistent with its actions and interpret things in what ever way it chooses. China simply see the rest of the world as an extension of how it runs its internal affairs.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if China sees that other nations have abused certain international laws and rules to advance their own interests and have little faith in the credibility of certain rules and the implementation and discharging of consequences, and see the system as stacked against it while looser for other countries (for certain issues)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top