![]() Why does this difference in the definition of freedom of navigation matter? Because it allows both sides to say that they are abiding by the rules for freedom of navigation set forth in UNCLOS, while disagreeing dramatically on what each side is allowed to do. ![]() Essentially, the Chinese argue that military ships should have to follow rules of innocent passage even in the 200 nm EEZ, and that military ships must get permission to enter the 12 nm territorial sea, even if those ships are planning to make an innocent passage. The Chinese definition of freedom of navigation is quite different. believes military ships must abide by the rules of “innocent passage” which precludes any overt military-related activity. believes that military ships may conduct any activity, including surveillance of the coastal state (e.g. definition of freedom of navigation means all ships (including warships) are allowed to traverse both the 200 nm exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and the 12 nm territorial seas without obtaining the permission of the coastal state. So getting all sides to “follow” international law is not necessarily going to solve the dispute here. and China have a fundamentally different understanding of what international law requires and allows under the principle of “freedom of navigation”. and China in the South China Sea over the right of freedom of navigation set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and customary international law. It is tempting to see this as a problem of one side ignoring international law, and the other trying to uphold it. As Chris notes below, it seems like there will be a showdown soon between the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |