o********s
发帖数: 971 | 1 http://qz.com/527865/differing-interpretations-of-international
Most states agree with the US definition of freedom of navigation. But some
states, including some neighboring South China Sea coastal states, agree
with the Chinese view on the EEZ (like Malaysia) and others follow the
Chinese view on the territorial sea (like Vietnam). So although the US
reading of UNCLOS is the majority view, the Chinese are not alone in their
interpretation of the law.
The US definition of freedom of navigation means all ships (including
warships) are allowed to traverse both the 200-nautical mile exclusive
economic zones (EEZs) and the 12-nautical mile territorial seas without
obtaining the permission of the coastal state. Inside the 200-nautical mile
EEZ, the US believes that military ships may conduct any activity, including
surveillance of the coastal state (e.g., “spying”). Within 12 nautical
miles, the US believes military ships must abide by the rules of “innocent
passage” which precludes any overt military-related activity.
The Chinese definition of freedom of navigation is quite different.
Essentially, the Chinese argue that military ships should have to follow
rules of innocent passage even in the 200-nautical mile EEZ, and that
military ships must get permission to enter the 12-nautical mile territorial
sea, even if those ships are planning to make an innocent passage. |
|
