The international-law Irony of U.S. Provocations in South China Sea

[yantong1980]

Just stick to the plan and finish that island construction, China. Leave the rest that unimportant.

 

[gambit]

One cannot exercise freedom of navigation within other's territorial water, which Washington does not dispute.

In principle -- No.

But the US -- and the rest of Asia -- do not recognize China's claim to the entirety of the SCS. Not only that, artificial islands do not earn territorial waters privileges.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

One cannot exercise freedom of navigation within other's territorial water, which Washington does not dispute. The right to innocent passage is a suspend-able one, only exception being through straits which the South China Sea is not. According to UNCLOS, foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea shall comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state. Furthermore, in regards to warship there are relevant articles.

Article 30: If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

Article 31: The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law.

This is basically another Iranian capture of US navy crews waiting to happen all over again.

The thing is SCS is not China's water for other warship's to gain permission to enter. China's claim has no historical or even modern basis.

 

[jhungary]

Finally, the first real customer

One cannot exercise freedom of navigation within other's territorial water, which Washington does not dispute. The right to innocent passage is a suspend-able one, only exception being through straits which the South China Sea is not. According to UNCLOS, foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea shall comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state. Furthermore, in regards to warship there are relevant articles.

But one cannot claim something as internal territorial water unless it was agree upon by all other party. China is "CLAIMING" South China Seas, not "OWNING" South China sea. China can claim Hawai'i Island is theirs originally, that does not mean China actually own Hawai'i and it does not mean the water around as Chinese Territorial Water.

You are wrong about the US Stance too, Washington does not lean toward anyone claim on SCS, their stance is neutral, that does not equal to Washington does not dispute China is the owner of the islands and seas (even so many of the Island in the SCS are owned by some other country than China.)

Your argument based on China Owning the South China Sea, argo, that water is Chinese territorial water, and you are using that assumption as the base to follow the UNCLOS rule, which the assumption itself, is faulted. As if what you are saying is true, then all other claimant also can say SCS is their territorial water, Philippine can say the US is traverse within their own territorial water and allow the US to pass.

So, you have no case.

Article 30: If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

Article 31: The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law.

This is basically another Iranian capture of US navy crews waiting to happen all over again.

Again, you are basically assuming SCS is undisputed Chinese territorial water, by claiming such, you are not owning such, you are claiming ownership but the case is not decided by any international body, and as far as I remember, China is the one that unilaterally claiming it without the urge to go to an international court. Yet, you are using the same court to try and justified the case you wanted, simply you cannot have the cake and eat it.

You want to show the US is at fault here? Pretty Easy, put the case on the arbitrary and if the international court judge in your favour, then you can tell the US to shut it. Otherwise your status is only "Claiming" not "Owning" and as long as you are claiming, that mean you are disputed. And the same you assume and the same thing you are using to argue your case, the US can use the same assumption to argue otherwise. As shown in your previous question.

 

[nang2]

Simple. When US says something about international laws, they mean something everyone has to comply, except US.

 

[jhungary]

Simple. When US says something about international laws, they mean something everyone has to comply, except US.

How about when US talked about international law and NO ONE COMPLIES? Let's have a jungle rules on survival in any international matter? If your country were invaded, too bad you sucked at defending your own country and Adios.

 

[asia2000]

How about when US talked about international law and NO ONE COMPLIES? Let's have a jungle rules on survival in any international matter? If your country were invaded, too bad you sucked at defending your own country and Adios.

Isn't that exactly what US did to Iraq and Libya?

In principle -- No.

But the US -- and the rest of Asia -- do not recognize China's claim to the entirety of the SCS. Not only that, artificial islands do not earn territorial waters privileges.

Have you asked the rest of Asian countries? Are there any rules about how many countries have to acknowledge before you can claim ownership?

 

[gambit]

Have you asked the rest of Asian countries?

Am willing to guess -- Yes.

Are there any rules about how many countries have to acknowledge before you can claim ownership?

None. But there are understanding among powers.

 

[asia2000]

Am willing to guess -- Yes.

None. But there are understanding among powers.

Ok, then there is nothing to discuss here. As, for you, everything is based on "guessing" and "understanding".

 

[jhungary]

Isn't that exactly what US did to Iraq and Libya?

Are you a lawyer? My wife is, and as much as she dislike Iraq war, she, along with every lawyer trying to find the wrong doing of Iraq war cannot find it illegal. Do tell me which international law the US break when they invaded Iraq? Did you bother to read the cause of war in Iraq? Which generally considered to be Resolution 687 by UNSC, an act China as a UNSC Permanent Member agree on?

687 Did not specified the use of force in the scope of having Weapon of Mass Destruction, it gave right to use of force at the REFUSAL of inspection In Paragraph 34, it specified "Designed to remain seized of the matter, and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area" While resolution 687 focus on allowing inspection and declaring of WMD the Iraqi currently process and specified to take further steps, which it does not specify whether or not war is one of the possible step. And Iraq did refused the UN inspection in several case, the UN inspector were ask to leave the country, Thus given the US a decision to take "Further Step" in order to ensue 687 was followed by the Iraqi Government.

While it does not specify whether or not War was excluded, hence it was a legitimate decision to use war to make Iraqi complies with Resolution 687, since it was not excluded hence they are NOT ILLEGAL Most people critize Iraq war as immoral, NOT ILLEGAL

Here are the Resolution 687 once again, suggest you read it.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/687.pdf

And Libya Intervention. Did you even know they were ordered by UN resolution 1973?

So if US break international Law by bombing Libya, then China, as part of party that passed resolution 1973 would be equally culpable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973

Indeed barking dog do not fight...go read your post #21 over again

lol, the US is breaking your rules, not talking about breaking your so-called rules. They were actually sending ship over in SCS, not talking about sending ship to the SCS to proof freedom of navigation.

On the other hand....

"This is Chinese Navy, This is Chinese Navy, you go now"

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

lol, the US is breaking your rules, not talking about breaking your so-called rules. They were actually sending ship over in SCS, not talking about sending ship to the SCS to proof freedom of navigation.

On the other hand....

"This is Chinese Navy, This is Chinese Navy, you go now"

What you expect? that we will sink a boast just with contemption? we're not immature like Americans which make wars everywhere when they please, we're not walking on self destruction path as Americans.

 

[phancong]

China won't deny the US Freedom of navigation for now, those island still not fully complete to fully militarize those island, wait till those island fully operational, US warship will encounter the counter move by Chinese navy, don't need to wait for a long time for some fire cracker to be lit up in the SCS.

 

[Aepsilons]

"This is Chinese Navy, This is Chinese Navy, you go now"

Got to admit, buddy, the amount of island genesis they have done is impressive.

 

[Zsari]

The thing is SCS is not China's water for other warship's to gain permission to enter. China's claim has no historical or even modern basis.

Wthin 12nm off Chinese island are Chinese water, which is why innocent passage are used by the US. The problem as I've described is that innocent passage is a suspendable right in accordance to coastal state's law.

In principle -- No.

But the US -- and the rest of Asia -- do not recognize China's claim to the entirety of the SCS. Not only that, artificial islands do not earn territorial waters privileges.

The issue here is not the entirety of the SCS, but passage within 12nm off Chinese island which is neither an artifical island nor a low tide elevation reef.

Finally, the first real customer



But one cannot claim something as internal territorial water unless it was agree upon by all other party. China is "CLAIMING" South China Seas, not "OWNING" South China sea. China can claim Hawai'i Island is theirs originally, that does not mean China actually own Hawai'i and it does not mean the water around as Chinese Territorial Water.

You are wrong about the US Stance too, Washington does not lean toward anyone claim on SCS, their stance is neutral, that does not equal to Washington does not dispute China is the owner of the islands and seas (even so many of the Island in the SCS are owned by some other country than China.)

Your argument based on China Owning the South China Sea, argo, that water is Chinese territorial water, and you are using that assumption as the base to follow the UNCLOS rule, which the assumption itself, is faulted. As if what you are saying is true, then all other claimant also can say SCS is their territorial water, Philippine can say the US is traverse within their own territorial water and allow the US to pass.

So, you have no case.



Again, you are basically assuming SCS is undisputed Chinese territorial water, by claiming such, you are not owning such, you are claiming ownership but the case is not decided by any international body, and as far as I remember, China is the one that unilaterally claiming it without the urge to go to an international court. Yet, you are using the same court to try and justified the case you wanted, simply you cannot have the cake and eat it.

You want to show the US is at fault here? Pretty Easy, put the case on the arbitrary and if the international court judge in your favour, then you can tell the US to shut it. Otherwise your status is only "Claiming" not "Owning" and as long as you are claiming, that mean you are disputed. And the same you assume and the same thing you are using to argue your case, the US can use the same assumption to argue otherwise. As shown in your previous question.

You are more than confused. My arguement is based on the 12nm territorial water that US is intruding upon, not navigation within the SCS. In case you still haven't realize, the report clearly stated that the US vessel travel within 12nm off the Triton island which is a completely different matter from just transitting through the SCS.

 

[jhungary]

You are more than confused. My arguement is based on the 12nm territorial water that US is intruding upon, not navigation within the SCS. In case you still haven't realize, the report clearly stated that the US vessel travel within 12nm off the Triton island which is a completely different matter from just transitting through the SCS.

nope, you are the one that's confused on what I said.

What make you think Triton island is within Chinese Water? Because it was Chinese Claim or Chinese is the current administrator of the Island??

As I said, both case is not to be used as an assumption to allow for a true bearing under UNCLOS. As you assume the island belong to China as part of territorial water, but again, this is disputed.

Unless you came out ahead as a non-disputed owner of the Island, there would not be any ownership, of course you can enforce your own law on it, it does not mean you have your control of the island under international standard. You can, either go to a court and emerge as an undisputed owner, or alternatively, you can engage in any shipping that traverse thru the island, and the Chinese did not did either one of that.