China is not only threatening Taiwan. Its maritime aggression extends to almost all nations in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. State Department has issued the following study in response.
The United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Limits in the Seas No. 150 People’s Republic of China: Maritime Claims in the South China Sea
January 2022 Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs U.S. Department of State
This study examines the maritime claims of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the South China Sea. The PRC’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea are inconsistent with international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“Convention”).
The PRC asserts four categories of maritime claims in the South China Sea:
.Sovereignty claims over maritime features. The PRC claims “sovereignty” over more than one hundred features in the South China Sea that are submerged below the sea surface at high tide and are beyond the lawful limits of any State’s territorial sea. Such claims are inconsistent with international law, under which such features are not subject to a lawful sovereignty claim or capable of generating maritime zones such as a territorial sea.
• Straight baselines. The PRC has either drawn, or asserts the right to draw, “straight baselines” that enclose the islands, waters, and submerged features within vast areas of ocean space in the South China Sea. None of the four “island groups” claimed by the PRC in the South China Sea (“Dongsha Qundao,” “Xisha Qundao,” “Zhongsha Qundao,” and “Nansha Qundao”) meet the geographic criteria for using straight baselines under the Convention. Additionally, there is no separate body of customary international law that supports the PRC position that it may enclose entire island groups within straight baselines.
• Maritime zones. The PRC asserts claims to internal waters, a territorial sea, an exclusive economic zone, and a continental shelf that are based on treating each claimed South China Sea island group “as a whole.” This is not permitted by international law. The seaward extent of maritime zones must be measured from lawfully established baselines, which are normally the low-water line along the coast. Within its claimed maritime zones, the PRC also makes numerous jurisdictional claims that are inconsistent with international law.
This additional cash flow will help keep the economy ahead of the game, as opposed to behind the devensec.com order cheap cialis game. Losing weight is the best option to online viagra plumb erectile dysfunction issue. The man gets the stability to hold the erection for order levitra online the more drawn out time, this condition is called as the erectile brokenness. The efficacy of the organic herbs in 4T Plus capsule? The key ingredients in this herbal supplement are Ashwagandha, Safed Musli, Shatavari, Kuchala, Tulsi, Salabmisri, Akarkra, Kharethi, cialis buy uk devensec.com Moti, Jaiphal, Jaipatri, Talmakhana, Tambul, Semar, Shilajit, and Kaunch.• Historic rights. The PRC asserts that it has “historic rights” in the South China Sea. This claim has no legal basis and is asserted by the PRC.
The overall effect of these maritime claims is that the PRC unlawfully claims sovereignty or some form of exclusive jurisdiction over most of the South China Sea. These claims gravely undermine the rule of law in the oceans and numerous universally-recognized provisions of international law reflected in the Convention. For this reason, the United States and numerous other States have rejected these claims in favor of the rules-based international maritime order within the South China Sea and worldwide.
the PRC has advanced a new articulation of its maritime claims in the South China Sea. These expansive maritime claims are plainly inconsistent with international law as reflected in the Convention.
First, the PRC’s claims to sovereignty over maritime features that do not meet the international law definition of an “island” and fall entirely beyond a lawful territorial sea are inconsistent with international law and not recognized by the United States and other States. This includes any claim to sovereignty over entirely submerged features like James Shoal, Vanguard Bank, and Macclesfield Bank. It also includes any claim to sovereignty over low-tide elevations, such as Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal, which fall entirely beyond a lawful territorial sea entitlement and which are not subject to appropriation under international law.
Second, the PRC’s baselines enclosing Xisha Qundao (Paracel Islands) and its asserted intention to establish baselines around other “island groups” in the South China Sea are also inconsistent with international law. None of the four islands or island groups that the PRC considers to comprise “Nanhai Zhudao” meet the geographic criteria for straight baselines reflected in Article 7 of the Convention. Notwithstanding the Convention’s comprehensive regulation of baselines, the PRC also attempts to argue that there is a separate body of customary international law, outside of the Convention, that justifies its straight baseline claims in the South China Sea. This PRC position, which is examined in the State Practice Supplement to this study, has no merit. The evidence compiled in the Supplement demonstrates conclusively that the requirements for the formation of customary international law relating to outlying island groups have not been met and, therefore, there are no customary international law rules that provide an alternative legal basis for continental States, such as China, to claim straight baselines around outlying island groups.
Third, the PRC’s claim to maritime zones “based on Nanhai Zhudao” is similarly inconsistent with international law. Any assertion of internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, or continental shelf based on treating South China Sea island groups “as a whole” is not permitted by international law. Within its claimed maritime zones in the South China Sea, the PRC also makes numerous jurisdictional claims that are inconsistent with international law. These include the PRC’s requirement of prior permission for warships exercising innocent passage in the territorial sea; its asserted authority to prevent and punish violations of its “security” laws in the contiguous zone; and its restrictions on military activities in the EEZ.
The PRC’s claim to “historic rights in the South China Sea” is plainly inconsistent with international law to the extent it exceeds the PRC’s possible maritime entitlements provided for in the international law of the sea, as reflected in the Convention. The PRC’s historic rights claim has been protested by the United States and many other States and was rejected by the tribunal in The South China Sea Arbitration. The overall effect of these maritime claims is that the PRC unlawfully claims sovereignty or some form of exclusive jurisdiction over most of the South China Sea. These claims, especially considering their expansive geographic and substantive scope, gravely undermine the rule of law in the oceans and numerous universally recognized provisions of international law reflected in the Convention.
Photo: The guided-missile destroyer Harbin (Hull 112) attached to a naval vessel training center under the PLA Northern Theater Command fires its main gun against mock sea targets during a maritime training assessment in late December, 2021. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Zou Xiangmin)