5 ms·

Thanks. The relevant section is here: > In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions

Thanks. The relevant section is here: > In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention. https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc... It is just baffling to me that a reporter could write this article and not mention this, or ask an Indian official how their assertions are compatible with it.

eklavya 6y ago
It’s baffling how US can quote the international treaty it’s not a signatory to (US hasn’t ratified UNCLOS).
- akvadrako 6y ago
  Well if they don't follow the treaty they can sail wherever they like.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > It’s baffling how US can quote the international treaty it’s not a signatory The US is a signatory of the UNCLOS. It has not acceded to the UNCLOS by way of ratification, but being a signatory without accession has legal significance in international law. Further, the US views the UNCLOS largely as codification of rules already binding in customary international law, so it is neither surprising that it would cite these rules in the particular articulation another party has explicitly accepted.
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    > The US is a signatory of the UNCLOS. No. It is not.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - SiempreViernes 6y ago
      It's signed an agreement relating to a bit of the 1982 version: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/UNCLOS%20Status%20table_ENG.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/UNCLOS%20Status... And it signed the first one in 1958.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      That’s correct. Had I not mossed the edit window, I would have updated the grandparent: the US has a more complicated relationship with UNCLOS. In short: it didn’t sign because of objections to Part XI, signed an Agreement regarding implementation of Part XI that it cannot formally accede to without acceding to the Convention, hasn't acceded to either, and is arguably (given the incorporation of the Convention’s purposes in the Agreement) in a generally similar position to a non-ratifying signatory of the Convention by virtue of being such with respect to the Agreement.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  It isn't just that the U.S. hasn't ratified UNCLOS, the U.S. never signed it to begin with. Nevertheless, the United States has said repeatedly that it views the FON provisions as customary international law. Indeed, they are largely copied from the 1958 Convention on the High Seas (which the United States ratified in 1962) and the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (which the United States ratified in 1961).
nickthemagicman 6y ago
The media constantly writes incorrect things if it's sensationalist enough to get eyeballs. There's zero accountability for the media.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  > There's zero accountability for the media. In this context, I'm not sure what you mean. SCMP is a Chinese mouthpiece. Who would be holding them accountable?
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Is there any news media that's not a mouthpiece for some group?
  - shalmanese 6y ago
    This isn't a SCMP article, it's a syndicated piece from Reuters.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    SCMP is owned by the CCP how?
SiempreViernes 6y ago
Wrong convention, the USA only signed the one from '58, so correct link is this: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc... There's no difference in the texts on this case though, with both saying you have the freedom of navigation right, and the bit that says > [show] 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
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jessriedel 6y ago
  Thanks, useful clarification. However, I'll mention that although that's the one that the US signed it's not necessarily the one India would appeal to, depending on the exact nature of the complaint (which I think we can't really discern from the article). If the later version of UNLOS had granted that India had the right to refuse navigation of its EEZ to other countries, then it could complain about the US violating a widely accepted standard even if the US didn't sign it. Countries make those complaints all the time (reasonable or not), and as mentioned elsewhere in this thread > the United States has said repeatedly that it views the FON provisions as customary international law. So it's quite notable that even the most recent UNLOS don't grant India this right.

eklavya 6y ago

It’s baffling how US can quote the international treaty it’s not a signatory to (US hasn’t ratified UNCLOS).

akvadrako 6y ago
Well if they don't follow the treaty they can sail wherever they like.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> It’s baffling how US can quote the international treaty it’s not a signatory The US is a signatory of the UNCLOS. It has not acceded to the UNCLOS by way of ratification, but being a signatory without accession has legal significance in international law. Further, the US views the UNCLOS largely as codification of rules already binding in customary international law, so it is neither surprising that it would cite these rules in the particular articulation another party has explicitly accepted.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  > The US is a signatory of the UNCLOS. No. It is not.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - SiempreViernes 6y ago
    It's signed an agreement relating to a bit of the 1982 version: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/UNCLOS%20Status%20table_ENG.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/UNCLOS%20Status... And it signed the first one in 1958.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    That’s correct. Had I not mossed the edit window, I would have updated the grandparent: the US has a more complicated relationship with UNCLOS. In short: it didn’t sign because of objections to Part XI, signed an Agreement regarding implementation of Part XI that it cannot formally accede to without acceding to the Convention, hasn't acceded to either, and is arguably (given the incorporation of the Convention’s purposes in the Agreement) in a generally similar position to a non-ratifying signatory of the Convention by virtue of being such with respect to the Agreement.
torstenvl 6y ago
It isn't just that the U.S. hasn't ratified UNCLOS, the U.S. never signed it to begin with. Nevertheless, the United States has said repeatedly that it views the FON provisions as customary international law. Indeed, they are largely copied from the 1958 Convention on the High Seas (which the United States ratified in 1962) and the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (which the United States ratified in 1961).

nickthemagicman 6y ago

The media constantly writes incorrect things if it's sensationalist enough to get eyeballs. There's zero accountability for the media.

akvadrako 6y ago
> There's zero accountability for the media. In this context, I'm not sure what you mean. SCMP is a Chinese mouthpiece. Who would be holding them accountable?
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Is there any news media that's not a mouthpiece for some group?
- shalmanese 6y ago
  This isn't a SCMP article, it's a syndicated piece from Reuters.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  SCMP is owned by the CCP how?

SiempreViernes 6y ago

Wrong convention, the USA only signed the one from '58, so correct link is this: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc... There's no difference in the texts on this case though, with both saying you have the freedom of navigation right, and the bit that says > [show] 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

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jessriedel 6y ago
Thanks, useful clarification. However, I'll mention that although that's the one that the US signed it's not necessarily the one India would appeal to, depending on the exact nature of the complaint (which I think we can't really discern from the article). If the later version of UNLOS had granted that India had the right to refuse navigation of its EEZ to other countries, then it could complain about the US violating a widely accepted standard even if the US didn't sign it. Countries make those complaints all the time (reasonable or not), and as mentioned elsewhere in this thread > the United States has said repeatedly that it views the FON provisions as customary international law. So it's quite notable that even the most recent UNLOS don't grant India this right.