Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's not me who is claiming that the US will get inside rather it's Pentagon spokesman Mr.Warren
At least according to this source
China Rebukes US For 'Risky' Naval Standoff
I will make it simpler .....we all know that the States doesn't considers the islands or the nearby territorial waters as the Chinese EEZ .......let's say they violate it again and again ...then tell me will China make a move???
You will have the advantage....I will give you that.....the Chinese will benefit by laying low on this .......
it's kind of a stalemate which benefits US 60:40 compared to China....
with time,it will change
According to the UNCLOS - which China's a signatory to, artificial reefs and islands don't generate territorial boundaries, so the US, overflying these islands are still in international airspace and can't violate China's sovereignty.
UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index
I've noted that exception here:
"This is the Chinese navy... You go!" China warns US spy plane flying over South China Sea | Page 2
Any land reclamation in the SCS is outside the territorial boundary of China, thought they may fall within other regional nations if their EEZ or territorial sovereignty extends over the area.
It's unequivocally international airspace.
Which has nothing to do with the inability of artificial islands or land reclamation to generate territorial claims. Irrespective of sovereign claims, artificial islands don't extend or constitute territory gained. Therefore China can't use such islands to extends its claim over the SCS or use them as justification to restrict flights in international airspace.
Sovereign territories can be land or mobile structures like ships or temporary structures like oil rigs.
However, for an island in the middle of the sea to have full legal status, which includes respected territorial waters and controlled airspace, that island must be:
- Naturally formed.
- Surrounded by water.
- Consistently above high tide.
While a ship and other man-made structures like an oil rig are indeed sovereign territories of the country that built them, they do NOT have territorial waters and any aircraft can fly over them without violating international norms, if not laws. You can get married on a ship and that marriage will be respected by any country. A child can be borned on a ship and will have citizenship of the ship's flag. But that sovereign territory do NOT have the same legal status as that of an island.
Leaving the convention also means that China cannot use the convention's laws as legal weapons against anyone.The confusion is that the reefs, or small islands, by themselves are not artificial, China isn't building something on nothing. This is a grey area.
On the other hand, even if the United Nations rules against us, there isn't any way for anyone to remove us from those islands that are already there.
We can always just leave the convention as well, and since the US isn't a signatory member, yet, it's not the first country to not be in it.
Which is rejected.But the whole point is what if "most of the entire sea" is claimed as sovereign territory?
Leaving the convention also means that China cannot use the convention's laws as legal weapons against anyone.
These islands are at best 'grey' in the eyes of the international laws, as you admitted, on whether they are true islands or not. That means until their legal status are settled, there are no automatic obedience to any conditions that are normally granted to legal islands, and that mean the US is fully within legal rights to overfly them. We cannot board them because materially speaking, the built structures belongs to China, but precisely because they are not true islands -- yet or perhaps never will be -- in the eyes of international laws, there are no allowed EEZ to each.What couldn't China do with our navy and coast guard that the convention can? Since the US, according to the people here, don't respect our 12 miles claim and EEZ claim anyways, what would we have to lose by not being in the convention.
Would the US start to go within the continental China's 12 miles "territorial" waters, if we had not been in the convention?
Who else dares to go inside our territorial water, or want to? Due to our navy and coast guard.
So to recap, the US doesn't respect where we want the convention to work, while the others are too weak to infringe even if we weren't in the convention.
How does this change anything.
Did you just generalize a whole nationality as a bunch of liars?
These islands are at best 'grey' in the eyes of the international laws, as you admitted, on whether they are true islands or not. That means until their legal status are settled, there are no automatic obedience to any conditions that are normally granted to legal islands, and that mean the US is fully within legal rights to overfly them. We cannot board them because materially speaking, the built structures belongs to China, but precisely because they are not true islands -- yet or perhaps never will be -- in the eyes of international laws, there are no allowed EEZ to each.
New Recruit
exactlyWhat's wrong with our American friends? they need to learn how to respect sovereignty of another country.
Sorry, sir, you should learn the history firstly.What ??? that fake Island is within 200 miles Philippines EEZ while the chinese claim 9 dash line is 600 miles from China
But please do not forget, besides these artificial islands, there are plenty of islands that are naturally existed, and they have territory waters and EEZ!Sovereign territories can be land or mobile structures like ships or temporary structures like oil rigs.
However, for an island in the middle of the sea to have full legal status, which includes respected territorial waters and controlled airspace, that island must be:
- Naturally formed.
- Surrounded by water.
- Consistently above high tide.
While a ship and other man-made structures like an oil rig are indeed sovereign territories of the country that built them, they do NOT have territorial waters and any aircraft can fly over them without violating international norms, if not laws. You can get married on a ship and that marriage will be respected by any country. A child can be borned on a ship and will have citizenship of the ship's flag. But that sovereign territory do NOT have the same legal status as that of an island.
You cannot 'lose' something you never had. Leaving the convention means most likely China will never be able to use the convention's legal benefits for future situations in the seas. It means for those future situations, China will have only force of physical methods, not from moral persuasions, to deal with others. It will be simpler for all.Your statement was china loses "privileges" that the UNCLOS grants should we ever decide to leave it. My argument was that what would we have to lose really?
Especially, IF, like you said that the international body rules our islands not islands, in that case, what would we have to lose by leaving? Which was my point, of which you questioned.
Something else that needs to be considered is, if UNCLOS actually worked, instead of might is right, why didn't it work for the Philippines, if the judgement comes from the body favors the Philippines.
Which means, China's rights on the seas is directly related to our national strength, because our ambitions puts us on a collision course with the reigning and defending Super Power of the world, rather than become a "friend" to it.
The legal possession status of those islands are in dispute. They may have their own EEZ, territorial surface and airspace restrictions, and those privileges are standalone from possession, but until that issue is resolved China cannot claim them and use them to control the South China Sea. Any such attempt at control will be punished.But please do not forget, besides these artificial islands, there are plenty of islands that are naturally existed, and they have territory waters and EEZ!
These nansha and xisha islands (also called Paracel islands and Spartly islands) have been a part of China for more than one thousand years. China has sourvenity over these islands and territory waters. Any violation will be punished.
New Recruit
Sorry, sir, you should learn the history firstly.
Those islands belong to China for more than 1000 years. Phillipines, vietnam never claim the sourvenity of these islands until 1970s.
We can never say some islands is nearer to one country, then these islands belong to this country.
If this is the case, then the Andaman Islands should belong to Burma, right? They are far away from India
.