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," AmericanSocietyofInternationalLawInsight (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," Limitsin theSeas 36 (4th revision, 1981).
6. United States Department of State, "Straight baselines: The People's Repub- lic of China,"LirrtitsintheSeas 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," OceanDevelopmentandInternationalLaw 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: ChineseYearbookofInternationalLaw 16 (1997-98): 124. 10. United Nations, StatusofMultilateralTreatiesDepositedwiththeSecretary-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, Lawof theSeaBulletin 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, ChineseYearbookofInternationalLaw 16 (1997-98): 129.
�, 13. Y.-H. Song and Z. Keyuan, "Maritime legislation of Mainland China and Taiwan " OceanDevelop�reentandInternationalLaw 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, TheLawof theSea 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, TheInterna-tional Lawof theSea, ed. I. A. Shearer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 1: 304. 15. UnitedNationsTreatySeries 389, vol. 84.
16. Churchill and Lowe (n. 14 above), p. 87. 17. A. R. Thomas and J. C. Duncan, eds., AnnotatedSupplementtotheCommand-er'sHandbookontheLawofNavalOperations, 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'sHandbookontheLawofNavalOperations, para 22.214.171.124. The So- viet Union dropped its objection to a right of innocent passage by warships in the Jackson Hole Agreement of 1989: JointInterpretationof theRulesofInternationalLawGoverningInnocentPassage, attached to the Joint Statement by the United States of America and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, 23 September 1989, Interna-tionalLegalMaterials 84 (1990), p. 239.
21. Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia School of Law, UnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea,1982-ACo�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 journalofInternationalLaw 24 (1984): 809, 854; F. D. Froman, "Uncharted waters: Non-innocent passage of warships in the territorial sea," SanDzegoLawPreview 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, UnitedNationsConventionontheLawof theSea1982-ACommentary, II, volume eds. S. N. Nandan and S. Rosenne (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993), p. 274 (33.8(d) ); B. Kwiatkowska, The200MileExclusiveEconomicZoneintheNewLawof theSea (Dor- drecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989), pp. 219-20. 24.LimitsintheSeu, No. 117 (1996). See also Department of Defense, MaritimeClaimsReferenceManual. Accessed 19 August, 2002 on the World Wide Web: . 25.MaritimeClaimsReferenceManual, pp. 2-86. 26. J. A. Roach and R. W. Smith, UnitedStatesResponsestoExcessiveMaritimeClaims, 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 " MarinePolicy 10 ( 1986) : 171-86, a reply by B. Kwiatkowska, MarinePolicy 11 (1987): pp. 249-50, and the rejoinder by Lowe, MarinePolicy 11 (1987): pp. 250- 52, 30. This summary, based on the account by Ambassador Lupinacci of Uruguay, and published in F. Orrego Vicuna, ed., TheExclusiveEconomicZone:ALatinAmerican
Perspective (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1984), pp. 75, 93-94, is reproduced in Nandan and Rosenne, (n. 23 above), p. 499. 31. H. Djalal, IndonesiaandtheLawof theSea (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, TheExclusiveEconomicZoneinInternationalLaw (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 85. 36. UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, TheLawof theSea:PracticeofStatesattheTimeofEntryintoForceoftheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawof theSea (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 UnitedNationsTreatySeries 151. See also Roach and Smith (n. 26 above), pp. 407-14. 37. H. B. Robertson, "Navigation in the exclusive economic zone," VirginiaJournalofInternationalLaw 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: TheExclusiveEconomicZone:RegimeandLegalNatureunderInternationalLaw (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, TheInternationalLawof theSea, vol. 1, ed. I. A. Shearer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), p. 578. 40. Orrego Vicuna, TheExclusiveEconomicZone:RegimeandLegalNatureunderInternationalLar�, p. 120.
41. S. A. Rose, "Naval activity in the EEZ-Troubled waters ahead?," NavalLawRevise, 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. GuangzhouRibao. Accessed 19 August 2002 on the World Wide Web: .
45. Robertson (n. 37 above), pp. 886-88. 46. Commander'sHandbookontheLawofNavalOperations (n. 17 above) para 126.96.36.199. 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'sHandbookontheLawofNavalOperations (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, DigestofUnitedStatesPracticeinInternationalLaru,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'sHandbookontheLawofNavalOpera-tions (n. 17 above), p. 143, para 2.6.