World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I mean this is just definitionally wrong. You can't acknowledge the existence of exclusive economic zones without also recognizing international and territorial waters.
"The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is merely a "sovereign right" which refers to the coastal state's rights below the surface of the sea. The surface waters are international waters.[2"
No, the Chinese government is trying to both have their cake and eat it. They are acknowledging the idea of internationally recognized law, but ignoring the aspects they do not want to adhere to.
By definition economic exclusion zones only apply to the resources beneath the surface, the surface itself is international waters. The water people are allowed to protect as if it were sovereign land is only territorial waters, which extend 200 miles from the recognized Continental shelf.
Actually, this isn't the full story. Military activities in a nation's EEZ is a point of contention: countries like Brazil, India, Pakistan, China, Iran, Malaysia, and Indonesia object to this. It's not explicitly defined in UNCLOS whether military activities should be permitted, and it's the prevailing view of countries that make up almost half of the world's population that it shouldn't be. International law hasn't really been extensively challenged in this regard until very recently (the past decade or two), so the debate on military activities within EEZ is still that, a debate.
Edit: for reference, it's mostly the big ex-colonial maritime trading powers that are in support of this because it makes their trade easier, while those countries who exercise coastal rights and natural resource exploration rights are opposed.
Meaning there is no provision against it. Article 87 and 58 are both very broad in their protections to any state operating outside of territorial waters, there is no reason to assume the freedom of movement only applies to commercial vessels.
Only so much that international law in and of itself is still up for debate. If that's your argument then the notion of international law is moot, and we will be doomed to regress fully back to might makes right foreign policy.
I also feel as if you are attempting to narrow the argument into a specific corridor that suits the Chinese perspective. Yes there are countries that disagree with the broad protections offered by the current international law, but that's not the only problem China has been rubbing against in regards to LOSC. They aren't just attempting to govern military movements in their EEZ, they are attempting to expand it, and police the movement of both military and commercial traffic.
I mean, they basically have a paramilitary fishing fleet that aggressively and violently violates other countries EEZ and territorial waters all the time.
I think the point of LOSC is to deescalate points of contentions in spaces where we all have to operate. The rights of freedom of movement serves China just as much as it does the United States.
I think, I feel
Ok, glad that we agree that we're operating in a grey zone for international law. I respect your opinion.
Yeah, it's an opinion. Just like yours, I just don't pretend to represent opinions as facts.
Yeah, I mean what else can you expect from a system that was fabricated to substantiate the clean wehrmacht theory?
But, if we're sticking to the main topic. According to UNCLOS, travel in everything but territorial water has pretty broad protections.
Whether international law is enforceable, logical, or ethical is a different debate that I wouldn't want to throw my hat into.
According to UNCLOS, which the US isn't signatory to? Some "international" ass law
Right, but we are talking about China whom are signatories.....
Like I said, your issue seems to be raised at the concept of international law. Not the individual international agreement we have been speaking about.
Again, your claim is that if something isn't explicitly specified, then it's allowed. This is the difference between common law (popular in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, etc.) and civil law (used everywhere else, including most of Europe, South America, China, Russia, etc.)
The question isn't about the concept of international law, but whether international law should follow civil, common, customary principles (or even Sharia, Halakhah).
No, my claim is that the law specifies all surface traffic is permitted. You are interpreting all traffic as excluding military traffic.
The difference between civil law and common law is that common law is more based on jurisprudence and interpretation. Civil law is based on codified rules and doctrine. Meaning that in civil law, if you wanted to exclude military traffic, there would be a codified specification to support this interpretation.
If we are evaluating unclos as civil law, then the fact that there isn't a codified definition of what traffic can go where is even more damning to your argument...
Except... That's not what UNCLOS says.
Article 56.2
Article 58
Article 73
Let me bold the points in question.
Valid operations in the EEZ are: 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, however states shall have 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 and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part. The coastal state has the right to take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.
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). It's not an operation involved with "operating ships or aircraft", and it's not an operation explicitly allowed under UNCLOS by any means. UNCLOS does not specify that all surface traffic is permitted. Given that, UNCLOS specifies that states should defer to the coastal states rules and regulations. 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.
"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.
Lol, the navy doesn't operate ships or aircraft?
Yes it does....so long as it is flying a flag from any state.
So long as they do not conflict with rights protected by unclos.
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.
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.
Any boat traveling on a body of water is considered navigation...... You don't stop navigating when you're surveiling something.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not claiming that navigation for military vessels is limited. Like I mentioned, FONOPs are valid under UNCLOS.