Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: The Case of Aerial Surveillance†

in Ocean Yearbook Online
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.

Help

 

Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?

Connect

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

References
  • tEDITORS' NOTE.-This article is partly based on a presentation "The Law of the Sea and Military Operations" given by the author at a seminar conducted by the Marine and Environmental Law Programme of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada on 14 February 2001. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not express the views of the Naval War College or the United States government. 1. F. L. Kirgis, "United States reconnaissance aircraft collision with Chinese Jet," American Society of International Law Insight (April 2001). Accessed 19 August 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.asil.org/insights/htm.

  • 2. Agreement between the Department of Defense of the United States of America and the Ministry of National Defense of the People's Republic of China on Establishing a Consultation Mechanism to Strengthen Military Maritime Safety, signed in Beijing, 19 January 1998. The author is indebted to Captain George Gal- dorisi, U.S. Navy (Ret) for this information. The history and work of the consultation mechanism is the subject of an outside publication by Captain Galdorisi and Lieu- tenant Commander George Capen, U.S. Navy, "Military Contact is Linchpin in Sino- U.S. Relations," 2001, US Naval Institute, Proceedings, 127:70. 3. (2001, 4 April). Chinese fighter bumped by U.S. military scout. Accessed 19 August 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/ 9514.html. 4. Ibid. . 5. United States Department of State, "National claims to maritime jurisdic- tions," Limits in the Seas 36 (4th revision, 1981).

  • 6. United States Department of State, "Straight baselines: The People's Repub- lic of China,"Lirrtits in the Seas 43 (1972). 7. Ibid., No. 117 (1996). 8. Ibid.; L. Wang and P. H. Pearse, "The new legal regime for China's territo- rial sea," Ocean Development and International Law 25 (1994): 431. 9. Taiwan (the Republic of China) enacted its own Law on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone of the Republic of China on 21 January 1998: Chinese Yearbook of International Law 16 (1997-98): 124. 10. United Nations, Status of Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary- General. Accessed 19 August, 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://untreaty.un.org/ English / treaty.asp. 11. United Nations, Division for Oceans and the Law of the Sea, Law of the Sea Bulletin no. 38 (1998): 28-31. 12. Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf of the Republic of China, promulgated on 21 January 1998, Chinese Yearbook of International Law 16 (1997-98): 129.

  • �, 13. Y.-H. Song and Z. Keyuan, "Maritime legislation of Mainland China and Taiwan " Ocean Develop�reent and International Law 31 (2000): 303-45. On the debate Within Taiwan concerning the one China aspect of the legislation, see Song and Keyuan, pp. 311-12. 14. R. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea 3rd ed. (Manchester: Juris Publishing, 1999), pp. 75-76. For the proposal at the Hague Codification Con- ference, 1930, that overflight should be permitted, see D. P. O'Connell, The Interna- tional Law of the Sea, ed. I. A. Shearer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 1: 304. 15. United Nations Treaty Series 389, vol. 84.

  • 16. Churchill and Lowe (n. 14 above), p. 87. 17. A. R. Thomas and J. C. Duncan, eds., Annotated Supplement to the Command- er's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, International Law Studies no. 73 (New- port: Naval War College, 1999), Table A2-1, pp. 202-3. 18. In addition to China, this group includes Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cam- bodia, Denmark, Iran, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. 19. This group includes Croatia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Korea (ROK), and Yugoslavia. 20. Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, para 2.3.2.4. The So- viet Union dropped its objection to a right of innocent passage by warships in the Jackson Hole Agreement of 1989: Joint Interpretation of the Rules of International Law Governing Innocent Passage, attached to the Joint Statement by the United States of America and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, 23 September 1989, Interna- tional Legal Materials 84 (1990), p. 239.

  • 21. Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia School of Law, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982-A Co�nmentary, II, vol. eds. *»• N. Nandan and S. Rosenne (Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 1993), p. 155 (17.7); B. H. Ox- fan> "The regime of warships under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," Virginia journal of International Law 24 (1984): 809, 854; F. D. Froman, "Uncharted waters: Non-innocent passage of warships in the territorial sea," San Dzego Law Preview 21 (1984): 625, 659. 22. Law of 1998, Article 7. Song and Keyuan (n. 13 above), p. 314.

  • 23. Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia School of Law, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982-A Commentary, II, volume eds. S. N. Nandan and S. Rosenne (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993), p. 274 (33.8(d) ); B. Kwiatkowska, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea (Dor- drecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989), pp. 219-20. 24. Limits in the Seu, No. 117 (1996). See also Department of Defense, Maritime Claims Reference Manual. Accessed 19 August, 2002 on the World Wide Web: . 25. Maritime Claims Reference Manual, pp. 2-86. 26. J. A. Roach and R. W. Smith, United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims, 2d ed. (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1996), pp. 162-72. 27. Roach and Smith, p. 169.

  • 28. Churchill and Lowe (n. 14 above), pp. 160-62; O'Connell (n. 14 above), pp. 553-62. A. 29. See, for example, the illuminating debate between Lowe and Kwiatkowska: A. V. Lowe, "Some legal problems arising from the use of the seas for military pur- poses " Marine Policy 10 ( 1986) : 171-86, a reply by B. Kwiatkowska, Marine Policy 11 (1987): pp. 249-50, and the rejoinder by Lowe, Marine Policy 11 (1987): pp. 250- 52, 30. This summary, based on the account by Ambassador Lupinacci of Uruguay, and published in F. Orrego Vicuna, ed., TheExclusiveEconomic Zone: A Latin American

  • Perspective (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1984), pp. 75, 93-94, is reproduced in Nandan and Rosenne, (n. 23 above), p. 499. 31. H. Djalal, Indonesia and the Law of the Sea (Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International Studies, 1995), pp. 88-89. 32. Nandan and Rosenne (n. 23 above), p. 564. 33. Ibid.

  • 34. Iran, Marine Areas Act, Article 16 1993; Roach and Smith (n. 26 above), Pp. 413-14. The United States has protested against the Iranian legislation: Iran, Marine Areas Act. 35. Nandan and Rosenne (n. 23 above), p. 563 (proposal of Peru); D.J. Attard, The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 85. 36. UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, The Law of the Sea: Practice of States at the Time of Entry into Force of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (New York: United Nations, 1994), p. 133. The agreements referred to were with the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Greece. See also the Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents on or over the High Seas (the INCSEA Agreement) of 1972 between the United States and the Soviet Union, 852 United Nations Treaty Series 151. See also Roach and Smith (n. 26 above), pp. 407-14. 37. H. B. Robertson, "Navigation in the exclusive economic zone," Virginia Journal of International Law 24 (1984): 865, 886-88; Oxman (n. 21 above), pp. 809, 831. F. Orrego Vicuna, however, would accord to article 301 some effect in the context of navigation rights in the EEZ: TheExclusiveEconomic Zone: Regime and Legal Nature under International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 109.

  • 38. Kwiatkowska (n. 23 above), p. 203. See also Attard (n. 35 above), p. 85; Oxman (n. 21 above), pp. 835-41; Robertson (n. 37 above), pp. 886-88; J.-P- Queneudec, "Zone Economique Exclusive et Forces Aeronavales," Colloque, 1981, Academie de Droit International, 319:-24. 39. D. P. O'Connell, The International Law of the Sea, vol. 1, ed. I. A. Shearer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), p. 578. 40. Orrego Vicuna, The Exclusive Economic Zone: Regime and Legal Nature under International Lar�, p. 120.

  • 41. S. A. Rose, "Naval activity in the EEZ-Troubled waters ahead?," Naval Law Revise, 39 (1990): 67, 90. 42. (3 April 2001). China's solemn position on the US military reconnais- sance plane ramming and destroying a Chinese military plane. Accessed 19 August 2002 on the World Wide Web: . 43. Accessed 19 August 2002 on the World Wide Web: .

  • 44. Excuses concocted by the United States for 'aircraft collision incident' un- tenable. Guangzhou Ribao. Accessed 19 August 2002 on the World Wide Web: .

  • 45. Robertson (n. 37 above), pp. 886-88. 46. Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (n. 17 above) para 2.5.2.3. Ii 47. Regulations Governing the Issuance of Entry Authorizations for Naval De- fensive Sea Areas, Naval Airspace Reservations, Areas under Navy Administration, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, OPNAV INSTRUCTION 5500. HE. 2.4.4. 48. Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (n. 17 above) para 49. Orrego Vicuna (n. 40 above), p. 120.

  • 50. Roach and Smith (n. 26 above), pp. 409, 413; Rose (n. 41 above), p. 90, likens such legislation to "potential time-bombs ticking away" and that, if not yet "operationalized, they remain primed for use." 51. For actions by Ecuador and Peru asserting overflight restrictions above wa- ters constituting an EEZ in international law but regarded by them as territorial seas of 200 M, see Roach and Smith (n. 26 above), pp. 370-75. 52. The Freedom of Navigation Program (FON) was instituted in 1979: Depart- ment of State, Digest of United States Practice in International Laru, 1979, ed. M. L. Nash (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 1980), pp. 997-98. It was reaffirmed by President Reagan in the U.S. Oceans Policy Statement of 10 March 1983: Roach and Smith (n. 26 above), pp. 5-11; Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Opera- tions (n. 17 above), p. 143, para 2.6.

Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 40 39 5
Full Text Views 139 139 2
PDF Downloads 19 19 4
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0