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.
This is an important and a long-awaited contribution, and more will follow. Otherwise, anyone interested in the issues will only hear American illegal assertions, especially if one only reads English. Sorry, but there’s no excuse now.
The Ming Dynasty Treasure Voyages provide the most documented examples of Chinese maritime philosophy. The sea-route was purified and tranquillized and the natives were enabled quietly to pursue their avocations, reflecting a philosophy that maritime commerce should bring peace and stability rather than conquest.
Ancient Chinese maritime expeditions, particularly those of Admiral Zheng He in the 15th century, embodied a philosophy fundamentally different from colonial expansion. It was by and large intended to facilitate peaceful diplomatic and trade relationships with foreign countries rather than establish military dominance over sea routes.
The Confucian philosophical tradition, which deeply influenced Chinese thought on commerce, emphasized moral duties and social harmony. The Confucian philosopher Xunzi encouraged economic cooperation and exchange. The distinction between gentry and merchants was not as clear or entrenched as in Japan and Europe, and merchants were even welcomed by gentry if they abided by Confucian moral duties.
The foundation of Chinese diplomatic and commercial philosophy rested on key virtues including ren (仁, "benevolence"), yi (義; "righteousness"), li (禮; "propriety"), which emphasized harmony and mutual benefit in international relations.
Ancient Chinese texts frequently emphasized the importance of balanced international relationships. The early centuries CE saw flourishing trade where the Merchant Strangers knocked daily on our gates to have them opened reflecting an open policy toward international commerce and cultural exchange.
The Chinese approach to maritime diplomacy was built on mutual benefit rather than dominance, with diplomatic relationships based on a mutually beneficial maritime commerce and a visible presence of a Chinese militaristic naval force in foreign waters - suggesting strength was used to protect trade rather than impose it.
The philosophical foundation emphasized that successful sea commerce required not just economic exchange but cultural and diplomatic harmony, reflecting the broader Confucian emphasis on righteousness, benevolence, and proper relationships in all human interactions, including international trade.
Footnoted propaganda is lipstick on a pig. This thorough report somehow seemed to avoid noting that China ‘s claim huge parts of the South China Sea based on the nine-dash line hundreds of miles from Hainan. This conflicts with the legal territorial rights of the Philippines, Malaysia and Viet Nam and the increasing scrapes there and the Chinese creation of artificial islands is an act of global defiance of norms. How do the authors feel about that?
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.
This is an important and a long-awaited contribution, and more will follow. Otherwise, anyone interested in the issues will only hear American illegal assertions, especially if one only reads English. Sorry, but there’s no excuse now.
The Ming Dynasty Treasure Voyages provide the most documented examples of Chinese maritime philosophy. The sea-route was purified and tranquillized and the natives were enabled quietly to pursue their avocations, reflecting a philosophy that maritime commerce should bring peace and stability rather than conquest.
Ancient Chinese maritime expeditions, particularly those of Admiral Zheng He in the 15th century, embodied a philosophy fundamentally different from colonial expansion. It was by and large intended to facilitate peaceful diplomatic and trade relationships with foreign countries rather than establish military dominance over sea routes.
The Confucian philosophical tradition, which deeply influenced Chinese thought on commerce, emphasized moral duties and social harmony. The Confucian philosopher Xunzi encouraged economic cooperation and exchange. The distinction between gentry and merchants was not as clear or entrenched as in Japan and Europe, and merchants were even welcomed by gentry if they abided by Confucian moral duties.
The foundation of Chinese diplomatic and commercial philosophy rested on key virtues including ren (仁, "benevolence"), yi (義; "righteousness"), li (禮; "propriety"), which emphasized harmony and mutual benefit in international relations.
Ancient Chinese texts frequently emphasized the importance of balanced international relationships. The early centuries CE saw flourishing trade where the Merchant Strangers knocked daily on our gates to have them opened reflecting an open policy toward international commerce and cultural exchange.
The Chinese approach to maritime diplomacy was built on mutual benefit rather than dominance, with diplomatic relationships based on a mutually beneficial maritime commerce and a visible presence of a Chinese militaristic naval force in foreign waters - suggesting strength was used to protect trade rather than impose it.
The philosophical foundation emphasized that successful sea commerce required not just economic exchange but cultural and diplomatic harmony, reflecting the broader Confucian emphasis on righteousness, benevolence, and proper relationships in all human interactions, including international trade.
Footnoted propaganda is lipstick on a pig. This thorough report somehow seemed to avoid noting that China ‘s claim huge parts of the South China Sea based on the nine-dash line hundreds of miles from Hainan. This conflicts with the legal territorial rights of the Philippines, Malaysia and Viet Nam and the increasing scrapes there and the Chinese creation of artificial islands is an act of global defiance of norms. How do the authors feel about that?