Discusses whether the U.S. practices relating to freedom of navigation are consistent with codified and general international law, and evaluates the legal foundation of U.S. “freedom of navigation.”
Nonsense is still nonsense even if it has footnotes. The list of countries where the US has conducted FONOPS is gallery of rogues, so it’s understandable that China is displeased at being included, but a credible objection to US behavior would provide justification for China’s frequent violations of other nations’ maritime sovereignty (credible does not include bogus maps). Rejecting longstanding and almost universal understandings of international law and practices would also be more credible if based on more than obvious self interest.China may wish to reshape these understandings but it will require more than presented here to succeed.
Nonsense is still nonsense even if it has footnotes. The list of countries where the US has conducted FONOPS is gallery of rogues, so it’s understandable that China is displeased at being included, but a credible objection to US behavior would provide justification for China’s frequent violations of other nations’ maritime sovereignty (credible does not include bogus maps). Rejecting longstanding and almost universal understandings of international law and practices would also be more credible if based on more than obvious self interest.China may wish to reshape these understandings but it will require more than presented here to succeed.