China ADIZ

[IRfly]

Not talking about INCLOS, if that's what you're referring to. Talking about the long-accepted notion of a country's sovereign airspace corresponding with the maritime definition of territorial waters as being 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) out from a nation's coastline. Airspace not within any country's territorial limit is considered international, analogous to the "high seas" in maritime law. ADIZs are not really codified in international law, but are constructs which allow a sovereign nation to establish airspace extensions in which the ready identification, location, and control of civil aircraft over land or water is required in the interest of national security. I think I've got that right, but I'm sure there's a JAG or two on the forum who will correct me if needed.

Agree on all, particularly the point you make that ADIZ boundaries are not based on territorial waters/national airspace.

Although it doesn't really have anything to do with ADIZ per se, the double irony is worth noting: The U.S., which has not ratified the international law limiting territorial waters/national airspace, conducts FONOPS to enforce the limits which China ignores, even though China HAS ratified said treaty. What was the saying? "Never start a [maritime] war in Asia." Something like that...

 

[wink]

Although it doesn't really have anything to do with ADIZ per se, the double irony is worth noting: The U.S., which has not ratified the international law limiting territorial waters/national airspace, conducts FONOPS to enforce the limits which China ignores, even though China HAS ratified said treaty...

Not that either existing international law or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea mean anything to countries like China when it doesn't serve them. That is why they are quick to ratify any number of conventions, treaties and agreements while we debate them endlessly.

China signed UNCOLS on 10 DEC 1982, the first day. Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, all the players in the region and/or neighbors of China are signatories to UNCOLS. I dare say the Republic of China would have signed it if they could. So just what has this vaunted UN treaty done for the nations most affected by China's pugnacious move? It doesn't take a US ratification to bind the agreement to other signatories. To elaborate on my post above, when it counts, where it matters, UNCOLS, any number of UN treaties, and International Law in general means nothing to the countries we are most concerned about containing or competing with.

 

[BigRed389]

China signed UNCOLS on 10 DEC 1982, the first day. Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, all the players in the region and/or neighbors of China are signatories to UNCOLS. I dare say the Republic of China would have signed it if they could. So just what has this vaunted UN treaty done for the nations most affected by China's pugnacious move? It doesn't take a US ratification to bind the agreement to other signatories. To elaborate on my post above, when it counts, where it matters, UNCOLS, any number of UN treaties, and International Law in general means nothing to the countries we are most concerned about containing or competing with.

Yup...the issues here are really between China and its fellow signatory neighbors. US not signing is irrelevant.

Of course, the PRC can simply bastardize UNCLOS to get what they want; e.g. claim Spratleys, claim the entire South China Sea by extension. I almost admire how little they give a shit about what literally everybody around them thinks.

 

[Spekkio]

Probably because, militarily speaking, the heavy hitters are China and the U.S. So China pissing all over Korea, Japan, the Phillipines, etc. just puts the U.S. in a pickle, and China is probably correct in assessing that the U.S. is too economically tied to it to do anything substantial about it.

If anything, it's a good lesson to people who can't understand why maintaining a strong military is important in international affairs, unless you like being the country that can only say 'hey, don't do that' and hope that someone else helps you.

 

[IRfly]

China signed UNCOLS on 10 DEC 1982, the first day. Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, all the players in the region and/or neighbors of China are signatories to UNCOLS. I dare say the Republic of China would have signed it if they could. So just what has this vaunted UN treaty done for the nations most affected by China's pugnacious move? It doesn't take a US ratification to bind the agreement to other signatories. To elaborate on my post above, when it counts, where it matters, UNCOLS, any number of UN treaties, and International Law in general means nothing to the countries we are most concerned about containing or competing with.

Er...yes, that would be the ironic part. The other irony is the non-signatory, the U.S., playing the role of enforcer to the treaty that we did not sign.

 

[Hotdogs]

Er...yes, that would be the ironic part. The other irony is the non-signatory, the U.S., playing the role of enforcer to the treaty that we did not sign.

I think there's a difference between being an enforcer and doing whatever the fuck we want.

 

[BigRed389]

Er...yes, that would be the ironic part. The other irony is the non-signatory, the U.S., playing the role of enforcer to the treaty that we did not sign.

How is it a UNCLOS issue when the problems come from their claiming territory they don't own (Senkakus and Spratlys)?

 

[lowflier03]

Precisely. Unfortunately we just undermined our, and Japan's, stance by telling the airlines to comply with this BS. This is exactly what China wants, inch by inch they get their way...

 

[jmcquate]

Precisely. Unfortunately we just undermined our, and Japan's, stance by telling the airlines to comply with this BS. This is exactly what China wants, inch by inch they get their way...

No reason to challenge this with civilian lives (we all know what a cowboy ChiCom fighter pilot is capable of). We have other assets that are more appropriate.

 

[Renegade One]

No reason to challenge this with civilian lives (we all know what a cowboy ChiCom fighter pilot is capable of). We have other assets that are more appropriate.

Concur. Probably the right thing to do at this time.

 

[sevenhelmet]

^^^Definitely concur WRT preserving civilian lives^^^

Reminds me of the "hot dog yellow" circle around Farsi- which was somehow always between me and the case 3 marshal stack...

 

[Flash]

How is it a UNCLOS issue when the problems come from their claiming territory they don't own (Senkakus and Spratlys)?

China is trying to make it one by claiming that they originally owned the islands hundreds of years ago, same with the Spratlys and the Paracels. By establishing de facto control over the islands/reefs/shoals or challenging the countries that do they think they can wear down their opponents and gain the advantage and eventual legal control of the disputed 'territories' in the long run. This goes in line with other moves they have made in the South China Sea that haven't been as well publicized or noticed.

Precisely. Unfortunately we just undermined our, and Japan's, stance by telling the airlines to comply with this BS. This is exactly what China wants, inch by inch they get their way...

I think the flight through the area by the B-52s just 2-3 days after the announcement and continued flights by US recce birds, VQ-1 was actually mentioned by name as an 'old friend' in an article by a state Chinese newspaper just two days ago, establishes our stance very clearly to both China and our allies. That B-52 flight alone coming so soon and so publicly after the airspace announcement in a dispute we have previously stayed out of seems to have restored considerable faith in US backing to the Japanese. Requesting US airlines comply with advisory notifications is a small but safe thing to do.

 

[BigRed389]

China is trying to make it one by claiming that they originally owned the islands hundreds of years ago, same with the Spratlys and the Paracels. By establishing de facto control over the islands/reefs/shoals or challenging the countries that do they think they can wear down their opponents and gain the advantage and eventual legal control of the disputed 'territories' in the long run. This goes in line with other moves they have made in the South China Sea that haven't been as well publicized or noticed.

It may be semantics, but my point is that PRC disputing ownership of territory derives no moral high ground from whether we are a signatory to UNCLOS or not.

Territorial ownership disputes are something to be worked out by war, diplomacy, or International courts. UNCLOS starts with a baseline that you know who owns the land that legitimizes territorial water/airspace claims.

In the meantime, possession pretty much is 9/10 of the law, especially historical possession, which is why, beyond the strategic benefits, we should be backing our allies on this. Our not being a signatory to UNCLOS has no bearing on that fight, which is the one the PRC is trying to start.

Also, great article on the ground level situation of PRC shenanigans in the SCS: http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-sea/

 

[insanebikerboy]

Er...yes, that would be the ironic part. The other irony is the non-signatory, the U.S., playing the role of enforcer to the treaty that we did not sign.

Sailing through international waters and flying through international airspace isn't enforcing, it's giving the big middle finger to the Chinese. UNCLOS didn't establish these internationally recognized maritime boundaries, they existed pre-1982. UNCLOS just codified it. Because the U.S. never signed on and ratified it doesn't mean we don't recgonize international boundaries.

Precisely. Unfortunately we just undermined our, and Japan's, stance by telling the airlines to comply with this BS. This is exactly what China wants, inch by inch they get their way...

No, we recommended it purely as a traffic seperation scheme. Japan and S.Korea explicitly told their airlines not to follow these new ADIZ instructions but some of the airlines are doing it anyways as they don't want to run in to other planes of countries flying through there.

Call it tacit recognition by the civilians but the fact that all the military entities in the area are conducting daily ops in that area shows China that no one actually recogznizes the new boundries.

 

[Renegade One]

I think there's a difference between being an enforcer and doing whatever the fuck we want.

I think that sometimes they are one and the same,I frankly don't see the UNCLOS issue here…if we're discussing a ridiculous ADIZ claim, although that's often mentioned on the thread. More of an ICAO thingie maybe?

I guess I understand the relationship…"our waters…ergo our airspace". Nobody's buying it, it doesn't appear.