Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

xywdx said:

Article 56
Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the
exclusive economic zone

1. (b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this
Convention with regard to:
(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations
and structures;
(ii) marine scientific research;
(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment;

Not a real expert on law or anything, but this does seem to suggest that the US stepped over some boundaries.

Click to expand...

But this was not scientific research, it was a military operation, a surveillance and intelligence gathering operation, which is does not fall under such jurisdiction.

joshuatree said:

China has to uphold the UNCLOS with who? Those who signed and ratified. Would a Chinese citizen living in China be bound by American laws? Would a US citizen living in the US be bound by Chinese laws? No, it's about what society or group you're a part of. The US has not ratified the UNCLOS, you could go on and on about the laws set by UNCLOS but the US is not a part of the UNCLOS, plain and simple. Until ratification......China or any other nation that signed and ratified the UNCLOS technically does not need to adhere to these rules with a non-participant.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the nature of the treaty, and treaties in general. The law represented in the treaty is binding on the ratifying nation (unless it violates said nation's constitution, in which case it is null and void, but that is neither here northere), regardless of who it interacts with, unless the treaty stipulates that it does not apply to interactions with non-signatories, which is not the case here.

By ratifying the treaty, China made UNCLOS part of Chinese law. The government is bound by its laws (at least one would hope they would abide by them). For example, the U.S. ratified Geneva. If the U.S. goes to war with a nation that is not a signatory, it still must abide by the convention. The U.S. is not a ratifying party to UNCLOS, but it still must respect the claims of other nation-states, and it does indeed do this in practice.

bigstick61 said:

The regulations can only by law extend to economic activities. I think you completely misunderstand what an EEZ is, and I have a feeling perhaps the Chinese are, too, intentionally or unintentionally.

The EEZ is the same as international water except when it comes to the exploitation of the natural resources contained within it. It is very much about what China can or cannot do. The U.S. ship was not being a danger to other ships, and it was not engaging in economic activities or piracy or anything that is illegal under international law. Therefore the Chinese cannot lawfully do anything to the ship.

Click to expand...

Again, as it is EEZ, regulations of the coastal state apply. Whether the ship is civilian or not does not matter. Whether the ship claimed it was/was not conducting certain activites is irrelevent. If it is deemed necessary to enforce the regulations, then it is well within the rights of the coastal state to carry out the enforcement as stated in UNCLOS. Being a US vessel does not make it immuned.

bigstick61 said:

But this was not scientific research, it was a military operation, a surveillance and intelligence gathering operation, which is does not fall under such jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Part of UNCLOS also states that the coastal states' laws apply when not in conflict with UNCLOS.
I didn't see military operations as supported by UNCLOS, and I also don't think it's allowed by the PRC. :coffee:

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Just a thought-

Can the Chinese claim that the low-frequency sonar array was interfering with the marine life (whales, etc) in their EEZ? Since It states:





You can say a P-3 overflying a Russian carrier is endangering the ship because there exists a chance through either pilot error or technical malfunction for the P-3 to crash into the Russian carrier. The Chinese ships involved are not corvettes but small patrol boats about the size of a tugboat.

Click to expand...

With the whale thing, I think it would be a stretch. The courts in the U.S. and elsewhere have trended in the opposite direction on stuff like that. Chinese law would have to allow for the use of sonar in the EEZ for its ships to be able to do so, provided this was covered by the environmental impact clause. It'd be interesting to see what Chinese law says on this matter.

A PLAN ship was involved in the incident, as was a government ship that was non-military, besides the civilian ships. In an earlier incident, the Chinese perpetrator was a warship. But either way, it still doesn't matter, as the Chinese vessels, civilian and military, were actively creating navigational hazards which could cause damage to the ship or its crew. Such actions are quite illegal, for obvious reasons. A P-3 simply flying, on the other hand, is not analogous; a P-3 creating hazards for others through its actions, like trying to get in the path of other aircraft, would be more analogous to this situation.

Engineer said:

Again, as it is EEZ, regulations of the coastal state apply. Whether the ship is civilian or not does not matter. Whether the ship claimed it was/was not conducting certain activites is irrelevent. If it is deemed necessary to enforce the regulations, then it is well within the rights of the coastal state to carry out the enforcement as stated in UNCLOS. Being a US vessel does not make it immuned.

Click to expand...

As has been posted here time and again, and mentioned time and again, the jurisdiction over EEZs is very limited, extending only to artificial islands, exploitation of natural resources, the environment, and scientific research. None of those apply to this situation. China has no other exclusive rights or jurisdiction within the EEZ, plain and simple. That is the law that China passed by ratifying UNCLOS.

Also, I never argued that the ship was immune because it was a U.S. ship.

Finn McCool said:

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say. They can snoop, but they should expect that they might get intercepted, pinged, jammed, locked on to, flown over, etc., but don't actually endanger the safe passage of the ship/aircraft/submarine.

Click to expand...

A missile lock is considered an extremely hostile gesture, whether you actually fire the missile or not.



I think I somewhat miscommunicated my point in my last post. Has anyone entertain the thought that these trawlers could actually be a bunch of nationalistic fishermen? If they were govt property, I don't think they would put the character "prosper" on the bridge. This has precedent before between China and Japan in East China Sea, where trawlers and other ships collided with Japanese Coast Guards, as the trawlers were trying to make it ashore on Diaoyu Tai.

If international law allows it, the PLAN might as well start collecting acoustics data around all major USN bases in the pacific then. No one says you can't , but it's just not very friendly gesture.

joshuatree said:

But we don't know what transpired before the reported event. It's easier to argue that one should only get jammed when one is at an advantage in this arena. If you were a nation that had inferior jamming technology, you do the next best thing you can to "intercept". The reports did mention about having planes flown over. What if the US ship did not heed this warning? A lock on? Then I can picture people here accusing of aggressive, warlike behavior. Especially on an unarmed ship.

Click to expand...

Well if one nation has better jamming technology than the other, that's a fact of the situation. The disadvangtaged navy should get a bigger budget. Regardless of your technology you can't really cry if you're spying on another nation's ships and they jam your radars and communications because they have superior technology. If the Chinese did that to a US ship or plane, then they would be well within their rights.

As for taking other measures like locking on, well that's part of harassing the other side to try to get them to stop their intelligence gathering activities. Yes it's "agressive and warlike" but again it's to be expected and fully appropriate if people are following you around and trying to get you on their microphones etc. etc. If I were a ship captain, I would absolutely order my men to take steps to harass a foreign platform engaged in those sort of activities, in a effort to get them to essentially go away. But one has to know where the line is. It depends on the circumstances (where you are, the political situation, what the enemy is doing, what your orders are etc.) but generally we can put the line at firing, even firing in warning should not be done unless the other side is really doing something to endanger you. All I hope for is that the navies of the world know where the boundry lies, and are able to work it out amongst themselves, since these types of incidents happen frequently.

I think I somewhat miscommunicated my point in my last post. Has anyone entertain the thought that these trawlers could actually be a bunch of nationalistic fishermen? If they were govt property, I don't think they would put the character "prosper" on the bridge. This has precedent before between China and Japan in East China Sea, where trawlers and other ships collided with Japanese Coast Guards, as the trawlers were trying to make it ashore on Diaoyu Tai.

Click to expand...

Well, if that is the case then all the other incidents could be excusable. A frigate escorting the vessel for a short distance, possibly trying to collect data on the sonar arrays and aircraft surveying the ship and possibly picking up some of its electronic signals are not overtly hostile. However, its hard to imagine a group of fisherman trying to toss a grappling hook at hidden underwater sonar arrays. That seems to be the single most illegal thing the Chinese did if they indeed tried to steal the sonar array.