Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
I'm starting to see stories justifying China's actions by claming that we illegally violated their 200 mile "Economic Zone". Is anyone able to reasonably evaluate that claim? Two questions come to mind.
1) Is such a zone recognized internationally to the degree that surveillance flights are illegal?
2) Do we claim such a zone? (Someone posted that Reagan made a similar claim on our borders.)
U.S. Plane Grossly Violated International Law:
BEIJING, April 3 (Xinhuanet)-- The U.S. surveillance plane that caused the crash of a Chinese military plane in the coastal area off Hainan Province grossly violated international law, according to a signed article here Tuesday.
Authored by Gong Li, the article restates the whole incident. The article says that after the collision incident, the U.S. did not make any apology to the Chinese side, but instead scrambled to find so-called legal arguments for its acts.
The U.S. side claimed that the collision occurred in international airspace and the U.S. plane enjoys the freedom of overflight. The U.S. even went so far as to say that the U.S. plane's entering China and landing at a Chinese airport were due to an emergency, and the emergency landing is international practice. The U.S. also said that the plane is its property and enjoys sovereign immunity.
In response, the article says that the analysis of the incident from the perspective of international law can enable people to understand the true nature of the incident.
First, the collision took place in the airspace above waters close to China, which is also above China's exclusive economic zone, says the article. According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, foreign planes enjoy the freedom of overflight over a country's exclusive economic zone. However, it says, such freedom is not unlimited, as argued by the U.S., but rather conditional, it says.
According to Article 58 of the convention, foreign planes, while enjoying the freedom of overflight, should also take into consideration the rights of the country concerned, observe both the law of the specific country and international law, and are not allowed to engage in activities endangering the sovereignty, security and national interests of the specific country, the article indicates.
It points out that even U.S. scholars agree that due to limitations set forth in Provision 3 under article 58 of the convention, the nature of overflight freedom in exclusive economic zones by foreign planes is different from the principle of freedom over international waters.
U.S. surveillance planes, in total disregard of the repeated solemn representations made by the Chinese government, frequently approach the airspace above the sea areas close to China for reconnaissance. Such acts exceeded the "overflight freedom" principle allowed by international law and are an abuse of such a principle, the article says. It is proper and in accordance with international law for China to follow and monitor U.S. military planes in order to safeguard its state sovereignty and security, the article stresses.
It is certain that if foreign surveillance planes are conducting spy flights in airspace over water areas close to the U. S., the U.S. would not sit idle in line with the "overflight freedom" principle, it says.
Second, the article says that the entry of the U.S. spy plane into and its landing on Chinese territory without approval are infringements upon Chinese airspace sovereignty. The article notes that the Paris aviation covenant, the first multilateral agreement on airspace legislation in the world, stipulated principles of airspace sovereignty in 1919. The first item of the covenant clearly expounds that all members of the agreement admit that each state enjoys complete and exclusive sovereignty in the space over its own territory. Based on this principle, the agreement says that military aircraft of one state can not fly over or land on the territory of another without approval.
The article notes that the international civil aviation covenant of 1944 has a similar stipulation on airspace sovereignty and military aircraft. The article indicates that it is the normal practice in international law that a state enjoys complete and exclusive sovereignty for the space over its territory, and the so-called " complete and exclusive" sovereignty means that the state can rule and control its airspace completely.
As a demonstration of China exercising sovereignty over its airspace, the 12th item of the Law on Territorial Waters and their Contiguous Areas of the PRC indicates that only through ratification or approval by the Chinese government can foreign aircraft enter the space over Chinese territorial waters.
After the collision, the communications system of the U.S. plane still functioned well, and it had enough time to issue a request to land at a Chinese airport. However, the U.S. plane did not send any request or notice to the Chinese side for emergency landing, the article says. Even in ordinary cases, such acts are against international common practice, let alone the fact that the U.S. plane is no ordinary aircraft and its flight was not the ordinary flight of a civil airplane.
The entry into China's territorial space should have been clearly approved by the Chinese government under any circumstances. The so-called "emergency landing" can not be an excuse for the U.S. plane to intrude into China's territory without China's permission, the article indicates. The failure of the U.S. plane to make a request to or to inform the Chinese side was a slight to China's sovereignty. China is entirely entitled to take any just measures of self-defense to maintain its national security interests, the article says.
Third, the U.S. side, after the incident, not only failed to apologize to the Chinese side for its international malfeasance, but claimed that the U.S. plane, property of the U.S. government, enjoys the status of sovereign immunity, and that the Chinese side had no right to inspect it. According to international law, foreign military planes which make unauthorized landing in the territory of another country without permission does not enjoy the privilege of sovereign immunity. The United States itself also requires that foreign military planes obtain written approval before crossing into or landing on its territory. Moreover, U.S. policy is that foreign military planes are immune from search, detention or inspections only when approval is given by the victim country, the article says.
Obviously, the whole of the collision incident took place in the exclusive economic zones of China. The U.S. plane rammed and destroyed the Chinese plane, and illegally entered Chinese territory. As a victim, a country where the incident took place and as a country where the incident-making airborne vehicle is landing, China has jurisdiction over the whole incident and the full right to investigate the incident. This right has been attested by a long period of international practice. Relevant countries have never demurred about such a right and have never claimed any so-called "sovereign immunity," the article says. The ramming and destruction of the Chinese military plane and encroachment upon Chinese sovereignty over China's airspace by the U.S. military surveillance plane was an incident which grossly violated international law, it says.
The U.S. government must take full state responsibility arising therefrom. In accordance with the principle governing state responsibility, what the U.S. government should do first is to apologize to the Chinese government and people, and immediately halt all surveillance activities in China's coastal areas, and hold a positive attitude in carrying out a comprehensive and thorough investigation into the incident in cooperation with the Chinese government, it says.
It also urges the U.S. side to make prompt, sufficient and effective compensation for China's loss of life and property.
"1) Is such a zone recognized internationally to the degree that surveillance flights are illegal?"
About as legal as Quadafi's "Line of Death," which is to say "Nope!"
"2) Do we claim such a zone? (Someone posted that Reagan made a similar claim on our borders.)"
Not that I know of.
Yes, we do claim a 200 mile exclusive economic zone. This gives us the right to regulate economic activities in the zone, such as fishing and the exploitation of minerals on the sea floor. Except for these economic regulation purposes, our sovereignty does not extend beyond the 12 mile limit. We do NOT claim a right to bar foreign military aircraft operating within 200 miles of our shores. (But of course, we do enforce various laws beyond the 12 and even the 200 mile limits, such as the drug laws, boat people, regulation of U.S. -flagged vessels, etc...)
The problem is that this aspect of international law, which is largely the same as the "law of the sea," (going back to Hugo Grotius in 17th-century Holland) is not supervised or enforced by any universally recognized court but is only good where it is recognized by treaties or free consent. The great naval powers, Holland, Britain and the US in historical order, insisted on the right of free passage, whereas various other states have insisted on control of their territorial waters. The US used to enforce the 3-mile limit (with everything beyond that being governed by the principle of "freedom of the seas") by virtue of its monopoly of naval power, but recently (and notably under Jimmy Carter and clinton) US insistence on a three mile limit been compromised. In particular the UN has passed various treaties on mineral rights in the ocean that have compromised our older position, and we have not always forcefully disputed these UN claims.
So the present situation is typical. China claims the 200-mile territorial limit that is typical of regional land powers, while we have not been quite so insistent on our right to go anywhere within three miles of the shore. In other words, the law is disputed. Where it is disputed, since there is no univerally recognized court to settle the matter, in practice it boils down to which country is willing to enforce its views militarily, or by threat of using military force.
1. NO
2. NO
Heard expert on NPR this morning, he said it's nonsense what they're claiming about 200 mile zone.
There's several different and conflicting claims:
The 12-mile limit: This is the universally-recognized limit extending from the coast of a country. Any vessel or aircraft within this limit is subject to action up to and including seizure, depending on the circumstances behind the entry of said craft. In the case of the EP-3, since they issued a distress call prior to entry, international code would require that the PRC allow the craft to land at a suitable airfield and not molest the crew or the plane while repairs are effected.
The 200-mile economic zone: This generally applies ONLY to mining and fishing actions. In the case of the South China Sea, this is hotly contested due to the fact that the full 200-mile zones of several countries overlap. It does not preclude the presence of either ships or airplanes.
The Air Defense Identification Zone: This is the most nebulous of the three major zones. As the name implies, it applies only to aircraft, and typically extends out roughly 150 miles from the coast. This zone, to be in effect, must be clearly communicated and marked on air charts (or if declared after the last charts are made, a NOTAM-Notice to Airmen) must be published and on file with ICAO-the international airplane regulatory body). The procedures for aircraft entering said zone are also clear; the aircraft may be challenged and inspected. If it not determined to be an armed, hostile aircraft, then it must either be allowed to continue on its way or escorted from the zone. As the PLAAF has had experience intercepting EP-3s, they should be able to tell the difference between a line P-3 and the EP-3 variant.
I stand corrected! Thanks!
I should be a bit more clear; by "inspected", I meant "visually identified".
" I should be a bit more clear; by "inspected", I meant "visually identified".
Thanks for the clarification, I presumed, that "inspected" could not be reasonably stretched to mean "forced to land and disassembled". From what you, Cicero and Stingray51 have said, China's latest claims shouldn't resonate far beyond those that are very pre-disposed to believe them.
Good post. The PRC article cleverly finessed the 200 mile EEZ point by saying that the E3 was flying above China's EEZ. That was a true statment but meant to mislead the misinformed.
If I remember right, the US recognizes the "200 mile" economic limit ourselves. However, we also recognize the "12 mile" limit for naval/military operations. In other words, if you go within 12 miles of our shores, we will get a little upset with you. ALSO - we recognize only a 3 mile limit when applying the military scenario to ourselves. In other words, there are NO set standards, at least no particular standards.
(I just checked with a friend who is a international law expert. He gave me the 3 mile limit information, and even though he believes we ought to simply take the people back, he also says there are enough "standards" that both China and the US are "correct" in this matter. In other words, it brings us to an unresolvable position. Without kicking the crap out of each other it is going to be very difficult to resolve this, easily.)
3 miles is the old limit. Other countries starting claiming 12 and eventually the U.S. followed suit (but state law still extends out only 3 miles).
The Chinese guy on CNN with Frank Sesno today admitted they were in international waters.
The Chinese guy on CNN with Frank Sesno today admitted they were in international waters.
If that guy wasn't a shill for the Chinese government, then I don't know who is.
The Chinese guy on CNN with Frank Sesno today admitted they were in international waters. If that guy wasn't a shill for the Chinese government, then I don't know who is.
Sorry, I meant the guy on CNN Talkback live.
You are correct, sir.......I saw the guy on TBL too........I wonder if he actually believes all that crap?
(Many apologies, for I've never posted here.)
It is correct UNCLOS does specify 12 mile off-shore territorial zone, and 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone over international water which allows free overpass and expedient transit.
Having said that, I think many, even media, have mis-understood UNCLOS, and as being said here, that EEZ is not the point of contention.
China, *JUST AS USA DOES* - imposes extra-territorial security measure. As few have mentioned, the "200 mile" is not EEZ, but Air Defense Indentification Zone(AIDZ), where foriegn *millitary* aircrafts are restricted, unless prior permission were obtained via application or treaty.
AIDZ is national security issue where other nations respect. For example such millitary cooperative treaty exists between USA and Russia, but not between USA and China. Therefor it does apply in this case that the EP-3 was playing areal chicken in China's security zone, the very same security zone US herself prescribes to, and China have resptected.
IMO it is hypocracy to hear US government, knowing full well it has never negotiated to fly so close to China legally with respect to China's security, is now citing the 12 mile international water to justify her spy mission gone wrong.
In addition, what US government and US media are saying - as free as they are, is not the whole truth. UNCLOS does specify free overpass and expedient transit beyond the 12 mile territorial water. HOWEVER, it is not without limitation.
For example, UNCLOS stipulates free overpass may not compromise costal state's sovereign security - IMO a spy mission certainly is an unfriendly, even hostil act (often times survalance preceeds billigerance.)
Also UNCLOS stipulates expedient transit, meaning one can not abuse free overpass ie. making circles or U-ies. The EP-3 had been cruising southwards, off China's cost, then returning to where it came from, for the sole purpose of gaing millitary advantage via survalance - IMO abuses the free and expedient transit principle of UNCLOS.
May I remind you, China has not once sent spy plane 60 miles off American shore, none the less playing areal chicken, making sudden moves when escorted, endangering US flyers - whom is only out there to safeguard his country's security.
I hope you can appreciate that, and be honest with yourselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |