3 ms·

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 ht

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.