- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
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.
"article 90 defines the right to navigation as the right of every State “to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas”.
This is what I’m talking about… There is no distinguishing commercial navigation from military navigation. You are working off of a interpretation in what you have already claimed to be civil law.
If you actually read the articles the only time they specify a difference between commercials or military is in regards to aircraft.
Lol, the navy doesn’t operate ships or aircraft?
Yes it does…so long as it is flying a flag from any state.
So long as they do not conflict with rights protected by unclos.
Which is exactly what my original post explained…
Based on this and our other chat about the housing issues in China, I don’t think you are an idiot or anything. I just don’t think you are being academically honest, and have adopted an “ends justify the means” mentality common on Lemmy.
On the other post, you accused me of being completely wrong, but eventually admitted that they made a miscalculation in policy. Which under the mixed economy of China, is still a miscalculation of supply and demand.
I understand the reasons why people jump to defend any criticism of China on Lemmy, there is definitely people on here that take any opportunities to slander the nation. However, I haven’t made any criticisms that aren’t academically honest interpretations of how they execute their policy. I am also willing to defend the policy that I find admirable, such as I did with the other thread when the poster accused them of pricing people into homelessness.
Every nation deserves criticism of some sort, humans are exceptionally hard to govern. Pretending otherwise and attempting to dissuade any level of criticism of any nation does nothing but make you seem fanatical or disingenuous.
I don’t foresee this conversation really leading anywhere productive, as we have regressed to what I suspect is a purposely semantic dispute. Have a good one.
Again, your claim is that surveillance to enforce sanctions is considered “navigation.”
That’s absurd. Surveillance is absolutely an explicit military action. The standard practice has always been to intercept surveiling aircraft where possible (e.g., the entire reason the SR-71 is so fast is because it can avoid being intercepted) in international airspace. The SR-71 never entered Soviet airspace, and yet it was still somewhat reliably intercepted by MiG-31s throughout the Cold War.
You’re deliberately being obtuse about this issue because you seem to think “oh I’m putting around on my ship shooting stuff, launching drones, innocent passage woe is me.” A military ship has the legal right to sail innocently - that’s the justification for FONOPs. A military ship does not have the legal right to pursue military action - UNCLOS does not protect any states right to pursue military action.
Any boat traveling on a body of water is considered navigation… You don’t stop navigating when you’re surveiling something.
There is specific language in unlocs that delineates military and commercial air traffic. To utilize your interpretation we would have to assume that the authors of the articles remembered that military planes exist, but forgot that you can put guns on boats…
Lol, you are making up your own terminology. Military action isn’t a described term in the articles. You sure you know the difference between civil and common law? Kinda seems you are heavily relying on interpretation for your argument…
The only thing states are governed while in a EEZ is “refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations” It does not delineate between commercial or “military action”.
This is because there’s a long established history of commercial vehicles being utilized as military/paramilitary forces by governments throughout history.
Surveillance is not a threat or use of force and is done by both military and commercial vessels all the time. If surveillance was considered a threat of force, or a “military action” it would give any government carte blanche seize any vessel collecting or receiving any data in their EEZ.
Again, unless you have an argument that is completely based on semantic dispute, then I think we are done here.
What, exactly, do you think justifies US aggressive intercepts of Russian bombers flying in international airspace near Alaska, then? By your definition, they’re just navigating and should not be impeded.
First of all, you yourself have already acknowledged that the US isn’t a signatory. Secondly, I never claimed anything the US does is justified or ethical.
As I have already said, I wasn’t arguing that international law are ethical, logical, or even reasonable. My original claim was about how China was acting within the scope of the international agreements they are signatories to.