International law

timhowardlaw

Bluff, Feint or Stumble?

Then-nominee for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested the idea of blocking China’s access to the artificial islands China has recently built in the South China Sea. Not long after, then-President Elect Trump repeated his thought that the “One China” policy of the U.S. could be opened to negotiation. “One China” means the U.S. does not formally recognize Taiwan as a separate country. China responded to Mr. Tillerson’s comments with back-channel diplomatic expressions of concern. To Mr. Trump’s notion on “One China”, China’s foreign ministry responded overtly and publicly with “non-negotiable”. Hard to imagine a more focused reply. The rhetoric escalates.

Stay tuned. Is the U.S. administration bluffing, creating a diversion or just stumbling unawares into a diplomatic imbroglio? At the very least, they certainly have China’s attention.

timhowardlaw

Crowded North Pole

A Russian Mir submarine descended through the Arctic Ocean depths in 2007 and planted a titanium Russian flag on the sea bed, one of the polar commanders declaring “The Arctic has always been Russian.”  Denmark now officially disagrees.  Denmark did not plant a flag on the sea bed.  Instead they pinned a claim on the polar map by using the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”).  On December 15, 2014 the nation made its claim to 900,000 square kilometers north of Greenland.  Greenland is a self-governing part of Denmark.  Denmark adopted UNCLOS on December 16, 2004.  UNCLOS claims to territory must be made within ten years of adoption.

No happenstance:  ten year claim period per UNCLOS; well-known mineral riches at stake; Russia (and others) already moving; and Arctic sea ice melting at an accelerated rate.  Arctic open water and year-round shipping may be immanent.  Denmark knows how to drill for oil and gas, and knows how to do it in deep water and cold water.

How much conflict will issue?  Nation states now contend for claims to the Arctic, specifically the sea bed.  A total of 71 ocean going vessels traversed polar open waters in the summer of 2014, up from only 46 in 2012.  sea passages require internationally recognized rules, effectively curbing conflict.  Despite the polar rush, all involved countries know that much of the energy and mineral resources in the area are within the recognized 200-nautical mile economic zone of individual countries.

Like any natural resource race, unknown reservoirs and caches tempt.  Denmark, Russia and many others savor the prospect of an open water Arctic prize.  Russia acted unilaterally.  Denmark acted under UNCLOS.  Now the task is to join action for mutual advantage.

timhowardlaw

Southeast Asian Anxiety

China’s newly-blue water navy struts.  For three full weeks the force of two destroyers and an amphibious landing craft, possibly accompanied by a submarine escort, prowled the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific Ocean. The warships skirted Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. China probed relational flash points along the way. At the start the vessels patrolled the Paracel Islands, which are claimed by both China and Vietnam. Next stop, James Shoal, claimed by Malaysia as well as China. After forging through the Sunda Strait between Indonesia and Java, they policed the coast of Indonesia in an anti-piracy raid. The group skimmed the coast of Java, passing through the Lombok Strait, cut between two of the islands of the Indonesian group through the Makassar Strait and in the Western Pacific off the coast of the Philippines the ships’ artillery opened a barrage of live fire in a practice drill. Actions reminiscent of territorial claims and trans-national policing, all.

Most of the nations along the route studiously avoided comment, some even pretended not to notice. Most by contrast spoke out in the past at Chinese military actions. Secretary of State John Kerry during February cautioned the Chinese against increasing tensions that could lead to misunderstandings, weak gruel for the warriors who would oppose growing Chinese deepwater naval might and delivered after the January 20-February 11 provocative naval embassy. China’s Ministry of Defense publicly claimed its freedom to navigate the seas, and even the think tank commentators defended the exercise as completely within the bounds of international law (see http://www.iseas.edu.sg/ ). The Chinese naval force did not approach or circumnavigate Australia, yet the Australian Defense Minister overtly stated that China was under no obligation to notify Australia of the long-range forces’ movements, even though Australia monitored part of the exercises using surveillance aircraft.

Surrounding nations soothed with words or silence yet projected anxiety by actions.

timhowardlaw

What’s in a name? A claim, if it’s a sea.

The long-running dispute between the China and Japan over a group of islands called the Senkakus in Japanese (and the Diaoyu in Chinese) boiled over in 2012 in china.  Protestors targeted Japanese-made cars and Japanese-owned retail stores, and uncontrolled crowds stormed the Japanese embassy in Beijing.  This year, as tensions again rise, Chinese diplomats characterize Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in derogatory terms as a threat to regional stability.  But Japan has other disputes along the same lines, notably with South Korea over the Takeshima Islands, known as Dokdo in Korean.  Relations between Seoul and Tokyo continue to deteriorate over the naming of the sea that lies between Korea and Japan.  South Korea calls it the “East Sea” and Japan calls it “Sea of Japan”.  Korea fights back in unlikely places – such as the Virginia state legislature.  At the behest of intense lobbyists for Korea, the legislature passed a bill mandating that both names be included in school textbooks used in the state, the State Board of Education being ordered to ensure that result in any textbook approve by the Board after July 1, 2014.  Not to be outdone, Chile and Peru sought a resolution of the disputed boundary extending into the Pacific Ocean.  Peru turned to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.  Peru was defeated in the War of the Pacific in 1879-83 and Chile drew the boundary between the two countries.  The ICJ ruling redrew the boundary slightly, awarding Peru more territory but not the richest fishing grounds Peru sought.  Neither side was completely satisfied but both seemed mollified.  They may be willing to put the boundary to rest and focus on cooperation and trade ties.  more to come:  Bolivia filed a demand with the ICJ against Chile concerning access to the sea, and Colombia is now refusing to implement the ICJ ruling last year that granted to Nicaragua a more favorable offshore boundary.

 

Names and boundaries in distant lands, diplomatic offensives at home and abroad – and the Virginia State legislature in the middle of one of the disputes.  There’s plenty in a name.

timhowardlaw

Piracy or Greenpeace?

The 30 person crew of the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise was taken ashore in Murmansk, Russia on Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013 for questioning in connection with the attempted scaling on Sept. 18 of a Russian oil platform owned by OAO Gazprom in the Barents Sea.  The activists were protesting oil drilling in the Arctic, specifically in a new area that Russia was opening for development.  Russia was neither amused nor tolerant; the Investigative Committee, a Russian federal law enforcement body, will probe the incident but has already vowed to bring all those involved to justice.  The potential charge is piracy and the penalty is up to 15 years in a Russian prison.  The crew includes an American, four Russians and six Britons as far as now known.  The Investigative Committee specifically stated that punishment will be levied “regardless of their citizenship.”  The Kremlin’s human rights ombudsman characterized the option sought by the Investigative Committee as “gentle”, called the activists’ goals “noble” but accused them of endangering their lives and the health of others, presumably those on the drilling rig.  The spokesman for the Investigative Committee said that the Dutch-flagged Greenpeace vessel was “full of electronic devices of unknown origin and people calling themselves participants in an ecological rights group”, who tried to “all but storm” the platform.  He concluded that these actions raised doubts about their intentions.

Greenpeace rejected the characterization, called the activists peaceful and took the position that the charges had no basis in international law.  Some of the statement by the Investigative Committee took issue with the legal points, international as well as Russian federal law.

The oil platform?  Drilling now and expected to begin production later this year (2013).  The partners in the oil platform may include oil companies from various countries.  No statement from the governments of those countries or from the oil companies.  Greenpeace demanded the immediate release of the crew (no mention of the vessel) but made no further indication of plans to contest the matter.

Piracy action or Greenpeace activism?  Surprisingly muted response from Greenpeace and no statement at all from ecologically-minded countries, the UN or any NGO about what could be a stunning precedent.