A Dutch warship was harassed by Chinese military aircraft in the East China Sea on Friday, the Netherlands said, becoming the latest country to accuse Beijing’s forces of initiating potentially unsafe encounters in international waters.
In a statement Friday, the Dutch Defense Ministry said two Chinese fighter jets circled the frigate HNLMS Tromp several times, while its marine patrol helicopter was “approached” by two Chinese warplanes and a helicopter during a patrol.
“This created a potentially unsafe situation,” the statement said.
Actually, this isn’t the full story. Military activities in a nation’s EEZ is a point of contention: countries like Brazil, India, Pakistan, China, Iran, Malaysia, and Indonesia object to this. It’s not explicitly defined in UNCLOS whether military activities should be permitted, and it’s the prevailing view of countries that make up almost half of the world’s population that it shouldn’t be. International law hasn’t really been extensively challenged in this regard until very recently (the past decade or two), so the debate on military activities within EEZ is still that, a debate.
Edit: for reference, it’s mostly the big ex-colonial maritime trading powers that are in support of this because it makes their trade easier, while those countries who exercise coastal rights and natural resource exploration rights are opposed.
Meaning there is no provision against it. Article 87 and 58 are both very broad in their protections to any state operating outside of territorial waters, there is no reason to assume the freedom of movement only applies to commercial vessels.
Only so much that international law in and of itself is still up for debate. If that’s your argument then the notion of international law is moot, and we will be doomed to regress fully back to might makes right foreign policy.
I also feel as if you are attempting to narrow the argument into a specific corridor that suits the Chinese perspective. Yes there are countries that disagree with the broad protections offered by the current international law, but that’s not the only problem China has been rubbing against in regards to LOSC. They aren’t just attempting to govern military movements in their EEZ, they are attempting to expand it, and police the movement of both military and commercial traffic.
I mean, they basically have a paramilitary fishing fleet that aggressively and violently violates other countries EEZ and territorial waters all the time.
I think the point of LOSC is to deescalate points of contentions in spaces where we all have to operate. The rights of freedom of movement serves China just as much as it does the United States.
I think, I feel
Ok, glad that we agree that we’re operating in a grey zone for international law. I respect your opinion.
Yeah, it’s an opinion. Just like yours, I just don’t pretend to represent opinions as facts.
Yeah, I mean what else can you expect from a system that was fabricated to substantiate the clean wehrmacht theory?
But, if we’re sticking to the main topic. According to UNCLOS, travel in everything but territorial water has pretty broad protections.
Whether international law is enforceable, logical, or ethical is a different debate that I wouldn’t want to throw my hat into.
According to UNCLOS, which the US isn’t signatory to? Some “international” ass law
Right, but we are talking about China whom are signatories…
Like I said, your issue seems to be raised at the concept of international law. Not the individual international agreement we have been speaking about.
Again, your claim is that if something isn’t explicitly specified, then it’s allowed. This is the difference between common law (popular in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, etc.) and civil law (used everywhere else, including most of Europe, South America, China, Russia, etc.)
The question isn’t about the concept of international law, but whether international law should follow civil, common, customary principles (or even Sharia, Halakhah).
No, my claim is that the law specifies all surface traffic is permitted. You are interpreting all traffic as excluding military traffic.
The difference between civil law and common law is that common law is more based on jurisprudence and interpretation. Civil law is based on codified rules and doctrine. Meaning that in civil law, if you wanted to exclude military traffic, there would be a codified specification to support this interpretation.
If we are evaluating unclos as civil law, then the fact that there isn’t a codified definition of what traffic can go where is even more damning to your argument…
Except… That’s not what UNCLOS says.
Article 56.2
Article 58
Article 73
Let me bold the points in question.
Valid operations in the EEZ are: freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, however states shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part. The coastal state has the right to take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.
Military action (and, indeed, enforcing sanctions with surveillance using military ships is almost certainly military action) is not a directly permitted operation (it’s neither navigation nor overflight). It’s not an operation involved with “operating ships or aircraft”, and it’s not an operation explicitly allowed under UNCLOS by any means. UNCLOS does not specify that all surface traffic is permitted. Given that, UNCLOS specifies that states should defer to the coastal states rules and regulations. However, UNCLOS only directly gives the coastal state right to intervene in matters regarding living resources and does not explicitly allow intervention for non-resource interests.