A Dutch warship was harassed by Chinese military aircraft in the East China Sea on Friday, the Netherlands said, becoming the latest country to accuse Beijing’s forces of initiating potentially unsafe encounters in international waters.

In a statement Friday, the Dutch Defense Ministry said two Chinese fighter jets circled the frigate HNLMS Tromp several times, while its marine patrol helicopter was “approached” by two Chinese warplanes and a helicopter during a patrol.

“This created a potentially unsafe situation,” the statement said.

  • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Military action (and, indeed, enforcing sanctions with surveillance using military ships is almost certainly military action) is not a directly permitted operation (it’s neither navigation nor overflight).

    "article 90 defines the right to navigation as the right of every State “to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas”.

    This is what I’m talking about… There is no distinguishing commercial navigation from military navigation. You are working off of a interpretation in what you have already claimed to be civil law.

    If you actually read the articles the only time they specify a difference between commercials or military is in regards to aircraft.

    It’s not an operation involved with “operating ships or aircraft”, and it’s not an operation explicitly allowed under UNCLOS by any means.

    Lol, the navy doesn’t operate ships or aircraft?

    UNCLOS does not specify that all surface traffic is permitted.

    Yes it does…so long as it is flying a flag from any state.

    Given that, UNCLOS specifies that states should defer to the coastal states rules and regulations.

    So long as they do not conflict with rights protected by unclos.

    However, UNCLOS only directly gives the coastal state right to intervene in matters regarding living resources and does not explicitly allow intervention for non-resource interests

    Which is exactly what my original post explained…

    Based on this and our other chat about the housing issues in China, I don’t think you are an idiot or anything. I just don’t think you are being academically honest, and have adopted an “ends justify the means” mentality common on Lemmy.

    On the other post, you accused me of being completely wrong, but eventually admitted that they made a miscalculation in policy. Which under the mixed economy of China, is still a miscalculation of supply and demand.

    I understand the reasons why people jump to defend any criticism of China on Lemmy, there is definitely people on here that take any opportunities to slander the nation. However, I haven’t made any criticisms that aren’t academically honest interpretations of how they execute their policy. I am also willing to defend the policy that I find admirable, such as I did with the other thread when the poster accused them of pricing people into homelessness.

    Every nation deserves criticism of some sort, humans are exceptionally hard to govern. Pretending otherwise and attempting to dissuade any level of criticism of any nation does nothing but make you seem fanatical or disingenuous.

    I don’t foresee this conversation really leading anywhere productive, as we have regressed to what I suspect is a purposely semantic dispute. Have a good one.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Again, your claim is that surveillance to enforce sanctions is considered “navigation.”

      That’s absurd. Surveillance is absolutely an explicit military action. The standard practice has always been to intercept surveiling aircraft where possible (e.g., the entire reason the SR-71 is so fast is because it can avoid being intercepted) in international airspace. The SR-71 never entered Soviet airspace, and yet it was still somewhat reliably intercepted by MiG-31s throughout the Cold War.

      You’re deliberately being obtuse about this issue because you seem to think “oh I’m putting around on my ship shooting stuff, launching drones, innocent passage woe is me.” A military ship has the legal right to sail innocently - that’s the justification for FONOPs. A military ship does not have the legal right to pursue military action - UNCLOS does not protect any states right to pursue military action.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Again, your claim is that surveillance to enforce sanctions is considered “navigation.”

        Any boat traveling on a body of water is considered navigation… You don’t stop navigating when you’re surveiling something.

        Surveillance is absolutely an explicit military action. The standard practice has always been to intercept surveiling aircraft where possible (e.g., the entire reason the SR-71 is so fast is because it can avoid being intercepted) in international airspace. The SR-71 never entered Soviet airspace, and yet it was still somewhat reliably intercepted by MiG-31s throughout the Cold War.

        There is specific language in unlocs that delineates military and commercial air traffic. To utilize your interpretation we would have to assume that the authors of the articles remembered that military planes exist, but forgot that you can put guns on boats…

        “oh I’m putting around on my ship shooting stuff, launching drones, innocent passage woe is me.” A military ship has the legal right to sail innocently - that’s the justification for FONOPs. A military ship does not have the legal right to pursue military action

        Lol, you are making up your own terminology. Military action isn’t a described term in the articles. You sure you know the difference between civil and common law? Kinda seems you are heavily relying on interpretation for your argument…

        The only thing states are governed while in a EEZ is “refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations” It does not delineate between commercial or “military action”.

        This is because there’s a long established history of commercial vehicles being utilized as military/paramilitary forces by governments throughout history.

        Surveillance is not a threat or use of force and is done by both military and commercial vessels all the time. If surveillance was considered a threat of force, or a “military action” it would give any government carte blanche seize any vessel collecting or receiving any data in their EEZ.

        Again, unless you have an argument that is completely based on semantic dispute, then I think we are done here.

        • zephyreks@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          What, exactly, do you think justifies US aggressive intercepts of Russian bombers flying in international airspace near Alaska, then? By your definition, they’re just navigating and should not be impeded.

          • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            What, exactly, do you think justifies US aggressive intercepts of Russian bombers flying in international airspace near Alaska, then?

            First of all, you yourself have already acknowledged that the US isn’t a signatory. Secondly, I never claimed anything the US does is justified or ethical.

            As I have already said, I wasn’t arguing that international law are ethical, logical, or even reasonable. My original claim was about how China was acting within the scope of the international agreements they are signatories to.

            • zephyreks@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Russia’s intercepts of US aircraft, then? Canadian intercepts? Your claim that surveillance flights are not considered an action worth intercepting in inside EEZ is disproven by the actions of basically every country on the planet. That’s the current interpretation of international law, even if it’s not specified directly in UNCLOS.

              • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Your claim that surveillance flights are not considered an action worth intercepting in inside EEZ is disproven by the actions of basically every country on the planet.

                I didn’t claim that, as I already said there are specified clauses within unclos that delineate between military and commercial aircraft that limit the freedoms of travel for military aircraft.

                Which is why it doesn’t make sense to assume a delineation of “military action” vs navigation at sea. If they really wanted to limit navigation for military vessels they would have specified so, as they did with military aircraft.

                Again, I’m not saying this is fair or reasonable. Laws of the Sea were originally developed by nations that could enforce them with a strong navy, mainly to maintain a monopoly of that power. It doesn’t make any sense for these nations to ratify a system of rules that strip those powers away from them. The goal is to maintain the hierarchy of power, making the laws just reasonable enough for other nations to sign, as opposed to fighting a stronger naval power.

                • zephyreks@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I’m not claiming that navigation for military vessels is limited. Like I mentioned, FONOPs are valid under UNCLOS.