Chinese ships surround and harass US Navy mapping ship

[Tigerman]

Also for determining peaceful purpose it doesn't matter if the ship itself is designated military or scientific. You could have civilian ship doing work for the military, or military ship doing scientific experiment. The important thing is how the data collected is used, thus the "purpose" of the ship. And the purpose of the ship in question was to collect data to support undersea warfare, which is clearly not a peaceful purpose.

In the spring and summer of 2000, Japan several times protested naval intelligence-gathering and maritime-survey activities conducted by the Chinese along the coast of Japan. In August 2000, Japan complained of 17 such incidents that had occurred in Japan’s EEZ, and expressed concern that scientific research had been conducted around Japan without giving prior notice. China responded repeatedly that such activities were normal and legal.

[lbksig]

Number 3 of Article 58 also says that such ships in the EEZ have to respect and follow the laws of the coastal state. It's a gross misinterpretation to say just because it's a military vessel it can do whatever it wants. By this logic China or any other country can send a navy ship to as close as 12 miles to another country's coast and do whatever the hell it wants and no one can do anything about it, and this is clearly not what the convention allowed.

2. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, 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.

That is exactly what the conventions allows. The EEZ is an economic zone. It isn't an extension of territorial waters out to 200 nautical miles. The ships that fall under number 3 of Article 58 are the ones specifically mentioned within the text of number 3. Those ships are those that are exercising their rights and performing their duties with regards to economic exploitation or scientific gathering within the EEZ. China can put all the regulations on warships that she wants but warships in the EEZ are not covered. Warships are excluded under number 3 because China cannot put regulations on warships flying a flag other than her own. That is specifically clear in the convention. That makes China's regulations on what warships can do, even surveillance ships, incompatible with Article 58 number 3.

It's a gross misinterpretation to try and think that another country can put rules and regulations for governing warships when that is clearly contrary to the convention.

Also for determining peaceful purpose it doesn't matter if the ship itself is designated military or scientific. You could have civilian ship doing work for the military, or military ship doing scientific experiment. The important thing is how the data collected is used, thus the "purpose" of the ship. And the purpose of the ship in question was to collect data to support undersea warfare, which is clearly not a peaceful purpose.

And you're splitting hairs trying to differentiate surveillance and scientific exploration. Any ship can be looking around and say they're doing one or the other. In any case, they're both subject to regulation.

Not splitting hairs at all. There is no mention in the EEZ about peaceful purpose. That is in the Article on territorial waters. It is clear that in territorial waters you must have peaceful purposes. That is not written in the Article on EEZ so therefore it is not a requirement. If it was a requirement it would be written into the Article. The purpose does not matter. Scientific exploration is under the regulation of the coastal state, as per Article 58 number 3. Military ships fall under Article 58 number 2, and are not subject to the regulations of any other nation except the nation of their flag.

[/quote]
When a civilian vessel is commissioned by the government, it becomes a government vessel.

Fair enough. Then it was the Chinese government's vessels which violated the requirement under international law to operate with due regard for the rights and safety of other lawful users of the ocean. You can't turn across the bow of another ship with only 100 yards of space, forcing them to make an emergency stop.

And you know what? I'm still waiting for definitive legal proof on the claim that what the Chinese did was illegal. You want to say it's illegal? Well then where in the law, the very same law the US hasn't signed and think it doesn't have to follow but the rest of the world does, does it say it's illegal? It's only fair for me to ask.

If the US vessel is a warship as you have stated yourself, then you can't go about trying to interfere with her operations or putting her crew at risk with stupid stunts. What China did, by turning in front of another vessel without a safe distance, was an aggressive act that put both crews at risk. As I stated before, China does exercise the same rights and control over her EEZ as she does over her territorial waters. They are two distinct concepts to the rest of the world outside of China.

[TheGingerMan]

The Americans are complaining that the Chinese were not following the acceptable modes of harassment, perfected on the superpower level during The Cold War.
The Chinese, being relatively new at modern PSY-OPS, are falling back on the atavistic notion of territorial rights.

Both are right.
There will be much more of this, as the US and China feel each other out in the episodes leading up to first gush on prom night.

Hats off to the Junior Officers, of which I once was, who are at the thin edge of the wedge!
Underwear?
You ain't seen nuttin' , yet!


"Hey baby won't you take a chance?
Say that you'll let me have this dance

Well let's dance, well let's dance
We'll do the twist, the stomp, the mashed potato too,
Any old dance that you wanna do
But let's dance, well let's dance

Hey baby, yeah, you thrill me so
Hold me tight, don't you let me go

But let's dance, well let's dance
We'll do the twist, the stomp, the mashed potato too
Any old dance that you wanna do
But let's dance, well let's dance.

Hey, baby, if you're all alone
Maybe you'll let me walk you home

But let's dance, well let's dance
We'll do the twist, the stomp, the mashed potato too,
Any old dance that you wanna do
But let's dance, well let's dance

Hey, baby, things are swingin' right
Yes, I know that this is the night...."

[politbureau]

It's unfortunate that we're likely to see more of this brazen flouting of international conventions as the norm because the United States no longer possesses the one real defense against them -- the moral high ground that comes from practicing what one preaches. That's thanks in large part to the two-face arguments of many of the posters here who are arguing so eloquently now for the rule of international law.

[TheGingerMan]

It's unfortunate that we're likely to see more of this brazen flouting of international conventions as the norm because the United States no longer possesses the one real defense against them -- the moral high ground that comes from practicing what one preaches. That's thanks in large part to the two-face arguments of many of the posters here who are arguing so eloquently now for the rule of international law.

International Law?
Flash in the Pan of human endeavor? Creating more work for overpaid lawyers to argue about the unenforceable?

Sorry to disappoint, but the American Dream WAS never about the high moral ground. If indeed it perhaps might maybe have been, that high water mark evaporated in 1919.

[TainanCowboy]

It's unfortunate that we're likely to see more of this brazen flouting of international conventions as the norm because the United States no longer possesses the one real defense against them -- the moral high ground that comes from practicing what one preaches. That's thanks in large part to the two-face arguments of many of the posters here who are arguing so eloquently now for the rule of international law.

Yeah Spook....The Chicoms did it because of posts on Forumosa.com...yeah...that it.

Thanks.

Now go back to sleep.

[ABC]

That is exactly what the conventions allows. The EEZ is an economic zone. It isn't an extension of territorial waters out to 200 nautical miles. The ships that fall under number 3 of Article 58 are the ones specifically mentioned within the text of number 3. Those ships are those that are exercising their rights and performing their duties with regards to economic exploitation or scientific gathering within the EEZ. China can put all the regulations on warships that she wants but warships in the EEZ are not covered. Warships are excluded under number 3 because China cannot put regulations on warships flying a flag other than her own. That is specifically clear in the convention. That makes China's regulations on what warships can do, even surveillance ships, incompatible with Article 58 number 3.

China can't put regulations on warships, but it can still expell it from the area. This is analogous to foreign diplomats in China are immune to Chinese laws and cannot be fined, arrested, or tried, but can be declared persona non grata and be told to leave the country.

And frankly, even if US' actions in China's EEZ are not illegal per se, it is still detrimental to China's interest and security, and as such China is entitled to counter such actions to defend itself. If you come with bad intentions, you'll be told be cease and desist and all the legal mumbo jumbo on the laws of sea almost doesn't matter at that point. This is why no one is saying the US interception of the Russian bombers is illegal even though they didn't fly anywhere close to 12 miles of US coast.

Though I have to say the manner in which the Chinese ships countered the Impeccable was rather inappropriate, but it was certainly not illegal, and neither was the intent to expell the ship from the area.

[Tigerman]

China can't put regulations on warships, but it can still expell it from the area. This is analogous to foreign diplomats in China are immune to Chinese laws and cannot be fined, arrested, or tried, but can be declared persona non grata and be told to leave the country.

Nonsense.

Of course China can expel foreign nationals inside China's territory. However, it has no right to expel foreign vessels sailing outside of China's territory.

And frankly, even if US' actions in China's EEZ are not illegal per se, it is still detrimental to China's interest and security, and as such China is entitled to counter such actions to defend itself. If you come with bad intentions, you'll be told be cease and desist and all the legal mumbo jumbo on the laws of sea almost doesn't matter at that point.

So, any Chinese satellites flying over US airspace or over any part of the US EEZ are fair game?

[politbureau]

It's unfortunate that we're likely to see more of this brazen flouting of international conventions as the norm because the United States no longer possesses the one real defense against them -- the moral high ground that comes from practicing what one preaches. That's thanks in large part to the two-face arguments of many of the posters here who are arguing so eloquently now for the rule of international law.

Yeah Spook....The Chicoms did it because of posts on Forumosa.com...yeah...that it.

Thanks.

Now go back to sleep.

True. Poorly worded. I meant to say thanks in large part to the two-faced arguments of the political movement to which many of the posters here who are arguing so eloquently . . . routinely speak for.

For example, the Chicom's no-go zone has no more legitimacy under international law than the Neocon's no-fly zone in Iraq had. And anyone who thinks the the Chicoms haven't learned a trick or two from the Neocons still believes that the Bush economy was the pot at the end of the rainbow.

[TheGingerMan]

I've heard Navy chaps are damn scared of Marines.
Having giving them a ride to the fighting, 'n'all.......
~~~~~~~
It don't mean shite, in real hands-on diplomacy terms, until the real shooting starts.
All else is psy-ops, which is not be ignored as a tangible means of war.

If I was, and thank christ that I'm not, a junior grade officer in the PLA, or PLAN,[ the latter which is incredibly still appended to the Army], I would order my NCOs to harrass & interdict any & all Allied Forces. But of course, the NCOs, being far more astute than the entire offcier corps, would have already done so.
Short of firing their weapons. of course.
Intimidate one's opponent, even if for a moment, unto outward uncertainty and internal division.
China 1, USA 0.