Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Arab-Israeli Solution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (281)	4/10/2001 12:33:36 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2279

Karen... Do a search under "Law of the Sea Convention" and you'll find it... It designates a 200 mile economic zone from any coastal state (not in conflict with another coastal state), where that state has economic control over the use and exploitation of the area (fishing, mineral mining) . China signed and ratified it, but the US Senate has not passed it, so the US finds itself in the awkward position of having advocated the convention, but not signing it yet. But none of this has anything to do with the price of tea in China since it pertains ONLY to ships and vessels traversing those waters. It does not grant control over the airspace above the 200 mile economic zone, which still fall under the 1944 Chicago convention on International Civil Aviation. That convention declares that the territorial airspace is limited to 12 miles. That's why the entire Chinese position is ridiculous. The US will not, and can not, permit every various nation to dictate its own arbitrary airspace (like Libya tried to do with the Gulf of Sidra incident in the '80s). As you can see... I've been busy doing a little research on the matter (been arguing with some chinese folks about it elsewhere).

To: KLP who wrote (281)	4/10/2001 12:59:15 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 2279

Here is a commentary by a law professor I found in my local paper. Tuesday, April 10, 2001 A bogus war of words China's hollow appeal to international law is no legal basis for a U.S. apology Chinese President Jiang Zemin is calling on the U.S. to apologize because one of his F-8 fighter jets clipped one of our prop planes in mid-air. First, we need to ask, does Jiang have any legal claim for his demand? Echoing previous statements ofAssistant Foreign Minister Zhou Wenzhong, Jiang asserts that our plane, with its distress landing, violated international law and trespassed into Chinese airspace. He further claims that China is entitled to search the plane and detain the crew because the United States was conducting operations within Chinese jurisdiction. As legal justification for seizing our airplane and detaining twenty-four U.S. citizens, China has invoked two international treaties: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944. UNCLOS is a treaty that was never ratified by the United States. It is a far-reaching code of international rules that applies to the oceans. It establishes a WTO-like international bureaucracy called the International Seabed Authority (ISA). If the United States ever does decide to ratify UNCLOS, our nation is going to see its power and influence over the resources of the ocean limited to one vote in the ISA. American enterprises that possess the financial and technological wherewithal to engage in oceanic mining will suddenly find the fruits of their labors controlled by faceless, unelected international bureaucrats. Our country has specifically chosen not to ratify UNCLOS, but this detail seems to have escaped China's radar. It is appealing to the treaty as an international standard anyway. Nevertheless, the Chinese legal arguments are weak. Our plane had a legitimate right to land safely. When an aircraft is experiencing weather-related or technical problems and is in distress, it has the right to perform an emergency set down in a "safe harbor." This is true under both the 1944 Convention and the more recent UNCLOS. A downed plane is also officially immune from any search when exigent circumstances are involved in its landing. Integral to this international legal tug of war is China's contention that its historical territory extends over 1,000 miles into the South China Sea. U.S. officials place our plane 60 miles off the coast of China's Hainan Island. Such a distance would be well outside the 12-mile territorial limit from which planes are subject to UNCLOS. Beijing has also alleged that our plane violated UNCLOS by conducting surveillance within a 200-mile economic zone along its coast. However, the terms of the treaty do not prohibit a surveillance aircraft from operating in international airspace. This is quite different from a situation where an unsanctioned plane is flying over the sovereign airspace of another country. It is diplomatic and appropriate for the United States to express regret over the Chinese pilot missing since the collision. But China has predictably repeated their unfounded demand for a full apology. In addition, the Chinese have made less than subtle threats against the captive crew, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman promised that the Chinese government would "deal appropriately with the crew and plane according to law." This invokes the possible specter of a long legal process, a humiliating affront to these young Americans and their nation. Although America must always be willing to apologize and make appropriate amends when we are wrong, this incident with China is not a case in point. The American people must remain cognizant of the array of spurious legal claims being hurled against us and the undeserving nature of this sorry demand. With a unified voice from our elected leaders and a display of solidarity on the part of the American people, China will receive a clear message - release our citizens immediately or suffer the consequences of a rejection from the international community and a response befitting a rogue nation.