3 ms·

And sailing along their coast is not aggressive expansionism, but.. what, exactly? Furthermore, 1. UNCLOS allows coastal states to determine whether foreign sh

by bllguo 3y ago

And sailing along their coast is not aggressive expansionism, but.. what, exactly? Furthermore, 1. UNCLOS allows coastal states to determine whether foreign ships are allowed to enjoy the right of innocent passage, and 2. the US does not even recognize UNCLOS. So much for "zero room for negotiation" - an unequivocally false statement.

nradov 3y ago
The 12 nm limit is hardly "along their coast". In most cases it's not even in sight of their coast. Nothing even remotely aggressive about it. Warships are allowed to transit foreign national waters under the right of innocent passage. They don't conduct any military operations during those transits. So again, that is obviously not aggressive. https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/ https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/
- bllguo 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    > The US has not ratified UNCLOS. You have no right to invoke it in your defense. You're the one who brought it up first. Also, the US generally adheres to the principles of UNCLOS, as it specifically objects to only a single section (Part XI, the International Seabed Authority). > Article 25: 1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent. But you omit this key part: > Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention. The Tawain Strait is more than 70 nautical miles wide, ergo, the middle part of the strait is reasonably outside the definition of "territorial sea."
  - nradov 3y ago
    There you go again, making things up. I never claimed that the USA had ratified the UNCLOS. Nor have I attempted to offer any sort of "defense" since no defense is needed. I merely corrected your errors and misconceptions. The USA has ratified the earlier Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. You should actually read it. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI-1&chapter=21 https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt... I'm not sure which "Bay" you're referring to, but the US actually does tolerate Chinese and Russian warships patrolling near our territorial waters. The US Navy or Coast Guard will typically shadow the foreign warships from a safe distance just in case they do anything hostile, and to gather intelligence. This is routine and not a problem.
Sakos 3y ago
Russian ships sail around Europe all the time. What's your point? I don't know why you're trying to muddy the waters here. The countries around China do not want them to expand their territory. Why are you okay with China doing so by ceasing the trips? Legitimate concerns? How about the concerns of every country around China about China? Do they just not matter to you? Why are you washing away their legitimate concerns?

by bllguo 3y ago

nradov 3y ago

The 12 nm limit is hardly "along their coast". In most cases it's not even in sight of their coast. Nothing even remotely aggressive about it. Warships are allowed to transit foreign national waters under the right of innocent passage. They don't conduct any military operations during those transits. So again, that is obviously not aggressive. https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/ https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/

bllguo 3y ago
[flagged]
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > The US has not ratified UNCLOS. You have no right to invoke it in your defense. You're the one who brought it up first. Also, the US generally adheres to the principles of UNCLOS, as it specifically objects to only a single section (Part XI, the International Seabed Authority). > Article 25: 1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent. But you omit this key part: > Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention. The Tawain Strait is more than 70 nautical miles wide, ergo, the middle part of the strait is reasonably outside the definition of "territorial sea."
- nradov 3y ago
  There you go again, making things up. I never claimed that the USA had ratified the UNCLOS. Nor have I attempted to offer any sort of "defense" since no defense is needed. I merely corrected your errors and misconceptions. The USA has ratified the earlier Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. You should actually read it. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI-1&chapter=21 https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt... I'm not sure which "Bay" you're referring to, but the US actually does tolerate Chinese and Russian warships patrolling near our territorial waters. The US Navy or Coast Guard will typically shadow the foreign warships from a safe distance just in case they do anything hostile, and to gather intelligence. This is routine and not a problem.

Sakos 3y ago

Russian ships sail around Europe all the time. What's your point? I don't know why you're trying to muddy the waters here. The countries around China do not want them to expand their territory. Why are you okay with China doing so by ceasing the trips? Legitimate concerns? How about the concerns of every country around China about China? Do they just not matter to you? Why are you washing away their legitimate concerns?