Chinese military harassed Dutch warship enforcing UN sanctions on North Korea, Netherlands says | CNN
www.cnn.com
A Dutch warship was harassed by Chinese military aircraft in the East China Sea on Friday, the Netherlands said, becoming the latest country to accuse Beijing’s forces of initiating potentially unsafe encounters in international waters.

A Dutch warship was harassed by Chinese military aircraft in the East China Sea on Friday, the Netherlands said, becoming the latest country to accuse Beijing’s forces of initiating potentially unsafe encounters in international waters.

In a statement Friday, the Dutch Defense Ministry said two Chinese fighter jets circled the frigate HNLMS Tromp several times, while its marine patrol helicopter was “approached” by two Chinese warplanes and a helicopter during a patrol.

“This created a potentially unsafe situation,” the statement said.

  • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.eeEnglish
    1·
    17 days ago

    What, exactly, do you think justifies US aggressive intercepts of Russian bombers flying in international airspace near Alaska, then?

    First of all, you yourself have already acknowledged that the US isn’t a signatory. Secondly, I never claimed anything the US does is justified or ethical.

    As I have already said, I wasn’t arguing that international law are ethical, logical, or even reasonable. My original claim was about how China was acting within the scope of the international agreements they are signatories to.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      17 days ago

      Russia’s intercepts of US aircraft, then? Canadian intercepts? Your claim that surveillance flights are not considered an action worth intercepting in inside EEZ is disproven by the actions of basically every country on the planet. That’s the current interpretation of international law, even if it’s not specified directly in UNCLOS.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        16 days ago

        Your claim that surveillance flights are not considered an action worth intercepting in inside EEZ is disproven by the actions of basically every country on the planet.

        I didn’t claim that, as I already said there are specified clauses within unclos that delineate between military and commercial aircraft that limit the freedoms of travel for military aircraft.

        Which is why it doesn’t make sense to assume a delineation of “military action” vs navigation at sea. If they really wanted to limit navigation for military vessels they would have specified so, as they did with military aircraft.

        Again, I’m not saying this is fair or reasonable. Laws of the Sea were originally developed by nations that could enforce them with a strong navy, mainly to maintain a monopoly of that power. It doesn’t make any sense for these nations to ratify a system of rules that strip those powers away from them. The goal is to maintain the hierarchy of power, making the laws just reasonable enough for other nations to sign, as opposed to fighting a stronger naval power.

        • zephyreks@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          16 days ago

          I’m not claiming that navigation for military vessels is limited. Like I mentioned, FONOPs are valid under UNCLOS.