Back to the Falklands, Continental Shelf Edition

BBC News headline Falkland Islands fears new ruling expanding Argentina's sea control:

The government of the Falkland Islands says it is unhappy about a decision by an international commission to expand Argentina's waters to include those around the UK-sovereign lands.
The decision, which is not yet final, follows a move by Argentina in 2009 to expand its maritime territory to include that of the islands, known as the Malvinas in Argentina.
The move will increase its waters in the South Atlantic Ocean by 35%.
The area is potentially rich in oil.

On the other hand, there are many Argentinians who are delighted with this "ruling" though, as the UK government notes:

But the prime minister’s official spokeswoman said the UK government had not yet seen the full report, and stressed that the commission was merely an advisory body.

“It’s important to note that this is an advisory committee – it makes recommendations, they are not legally binding and the commission does not have jurisdiction over sovereignty issues.

“What’s important is what do the Falkland islanders themselves think? They’ve been clear that they want to remain an overseas territory of the UK and we will still support their right to determine their own future.”

I know there are emotional issues of national pride, etc, but there is that "oil" thing lurking in the background, isn't there?

Further, underneath all of this is the issue of the rights granted to any nation under the "continental shelf." Some of this is covered nicely in this MercoPress report, "Argentina, on a UN decision expands continental shelf area by 35% to 350 miles":

This means Argentina's shelf will increase 1.7m sq km from its current 4.8m sq km, and refers to the area from the 200 miles to the shelf slope. This represents a 35% expansion of its continental shelf.
According to reports in the Argentine media, CLCS on its 40th plenary session of last March 11, made public it had finally adopted the presentation on the shelf request, which was made back in 2009.
“We're reaffirming our sovereignty rights over the resources from our continental shelf, minerals, hydrocarbons and sedentary species”, Ms Malcorra was quoted in anticipation of Monday's official announcement at the San Martin Palace.
Attending the event will be Deputy minister Carlos Foradori, president of National Committee on the limit of the Argentine continental platform, COPLA, officers from the Navy and Coast Guard plus lawmakers.
“The demarcation of the exterior limit of the continental shelf constitutes a clear example of a State policy in which Argentina has worked professionally during twenty years with the purpose of reaffirming our presence, conservation of our resources and reaffirming our sovereignty rights over a zone politically, economically and strategically so important in the South Atlantic”, added Ms Malcorra.
This acknowledgement means the UN accept there is a dispute over the South Atlantic islands, and is “another diplomatic victory” for Argentina said Deputy minister Foradori.
However, “Argentina will not exercise these rights over territories and maritime spaces which the United Kingdom is administrating unilaterally since 1833”.
***
The shelf refers to the sea floor and subsoil from the 200 miles maritime zone up to the natural extension of the continental territory with a 350 miles limit.
The UN CLCS is a scientific commission made up of 21 international experts and in the case of Argentina's presentation the decision was unanimous.

You can read about the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf here:

The purpose of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (the Commission or CLCS) is to facilitate the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention) in respect of the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (M) from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Under the Convention, the coastal State shall establish the outer limits of its continental shelf where it extends beyond 200 M on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission. The Commission shall make recommendations to coastal States on matters related to the establishment of those limits; its recommendations and actions shall not prejudice matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries between States with opposite or adjacent coasts.

Part VI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines the "continental shelf":

1. The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.

That 200 mile limit is subject to refinement (expansion) under certain conditions:

4. (a) For the purposes of this Convention, the coastal State shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, by either:

(i) a line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to the outermost fixed points at each of which the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least 1 per cent of the shortest distance from such point to the foot of the continental slope; or

(ii) a line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to fixed points not more than 60 nautical miles from the foot of the continental slope.

(b) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the foot of the continental slope shall be determined as the point of maximum change in the gradient at its base.

5. The fixed points comprising the line of the outer limits of the continental shelf on the seabed, drawn in accordance with paragraph 4 (a)(i) and (ii), either shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured or shall not exceed 100 nautical miles from the 2,500 metre isobath, which is a line connecting the depth of 2,500 metres.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 5, on submarine ridges, the outer limit of the continental shelf shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. This paragraph does not apply to submarine elevations that are natural components of the continental margin, such as its plateaux, rises, caps, banks and spurs.

So, what the CLCS has done is to find that Argentina has made its case that its continental shelf extends out past 200 miles to 350 miles in places.

Why does that matter? See Article 77:

Article77

Rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf

1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 are exclusive in the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake these activities without the express consent of the coastal State.

3. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation.

4. The natural resources referred to in this Part consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil.(highlights added)

Back to the oil issue.

Further, this "continental shelf issue" is are playing out in the Arctic Ocean, where Russia (and others) have assert that they have "sovereign rights" over large portions of the seabed for purposes of exploration and exploitation. See the IBT's Russia submits claim over Arctic and North Pole to UN citing scientific proof from June 2015:

Russia has re-submitted its petition to the United Nations claiming

exclusive control over 1.2 million square kms of the Arctic sea shelf, based this time on what its foreign ministry calls "ample scientific data".

The region contains some of the world's largest untapped reserves of oil and gas besides valuable minerals. The US, Canada, Denmark and Norway have also been trying to gain control over parts of the Arctic.

This is the second time Russia has staked its claim to what it sees as its territory. Earlier in 2002, the UN rejected the bid on lack of evidence.

Oil and gas.

See also here

"Should U.S. worry about China's island building?"

James Kraska on CNN: Should U.S. worry about China's island building?

Short answer: Yes!

Meanwhile, over the past six weeks, Philippine and U.S. maritime patrol aircraft have been warned away from the artificial island, as though China is claiming that its work generates a territorial sea and national airspace. U.S. Navy Adm. Harry Harris has dismissed these maritime claims as "preposterous," while Defense Secretary Ash Carter has stated that the United States will "fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows."

The "United States and everyone else in the region has a stake in this" because "it gets to the question of freedom of navigation, freedom of the seas, freedom from coercion, abiding by peaceful and lawful processes," Carter told the media on his way to Singapore for the Shangri-La Dialogue security conference. "[A]nd that is...a longstanding U.S. position, as is freedom of flying, freedom to sail."

International law appears to support U.S. officials' skepticism about China's seeming territorial aspirations.

Under article 121 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), only "naturally formed" islands or rocks that are above water at high tide generate a 12-nautical mile territorial sea -- there is no lawful claim of sovereignty over a submerged reef or artificial island. Despite this, on April 24, China flashed powerful lights at Philippine aircraft near Subi reef and reportedly warned it to leave Chinese "territory."

Read the whole thing.

Nice power play, you've got there China. But a little ham-handed.

Fun with China - South China Sea Freedom of Navigation Operations

Nice piece at Defence One discussing U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations in the context of the artificial islands China is creating in the South China Sea:

The point of these operations is to publicly challenge any country which seems to be asserting unjustified legal rights under UNCLOS. China has a longstanding disagreement with this US interpretation of the law of the sea. So they always make protests, and China has sometimes sent its fighter jets out to harass or challenge US spy aircraft.

But the bottom line: freedom of navigation operations are not challenges to “territorial claims” or “sovereignty”; US Navy operations already assume that the other nation has “sovereignty” over the relevant coastline or island. So the US Navy operations near China’s artificial islands can assume that China has sovereignty but still demand the standard transit rights.

Of course, it is worth noting that the US could soon escalate the dispute with China.

The US might take the view, for example, that China is building artificial islands on top of reefs or submerged features which do not entitle China to any legal rights at all (See UNCLOS, Art.60(8): “Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.”)

If so, then the US would fly within 12 nm miles or even directly over the artificial islands. Such operations would effectively be a direct challenge to China’s territorial claims, but they haven’t happened yet. 
(Hat tip to James Kraska)

China is pushing hard to assert that it has some historical claim to a large chunk of the South China Sea that renders the provisions of UNCLOS inapplicable. See Why US analysis of China’s nine-dash line is flawed:

The State Department study is at its most questionable in its blunt dismissal of the dashed line’s most compelling legal basis: as a geographic limit of China’s historically formed and accepted traditional fishing rights in the semi-enclosed waters of the South China Sea, which are exercised today on a non-exclusive basis. The study argues that China, in acceding to UNCLOS’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) regime and its exclusivity-based prerogatives, effectively conceded all prior usage-based claims that it may have held in foreign EEZs, even in semi-enclosed seas. Limited rights pertaining to historical uses are confined to the territorial sea of the coastal state. It quotes the International Court of Justice’s Gulf of Maine judgment of 1984 to press its point.

The study’s argument is conceptually and legally flawed. It fails to fully admit that such long-usage (traditional fishing) rights in semi-enclosed seas that pre-date UNCLOS can be exercised non-exclusively, and has been accepted by regional peers by way of practice. Further, such usage rights do not raise sovereignty or title-based claims but only give rise to the right to continue using the waters for these traditional purposes.

Read the source completely.

See also Maintaining Peace and Tranquility in the South China Sea:

International law has not prohibited the reclamation of land or islands from the sea. For instance, Shanghai has expanded greatly since the Song Dynasty by reclaiming land from the sea. Songjiang, now a part of internal land here, used to be coastal many centuries ago. Such reclamation has been continuing all the time – Japan has built Kansai International Airport through reclamation, Hong Kong has done similarly for its current airport, and Dubai has engineered its famous World Islands projects for leisure purposes. Certainly they have expanded their territory and gained associate benefits. Contemporary international maritime law doesn’t disallow such activities.

Maritime reclamation has been a part of our life. For a long time, Japan has been fortifying the Okinotori Islands and demanded an exclusive economic zone derived from its fortified structure. However, America has been silent on this. For a similarly long time, Vietnam has reclaimed and expanded some of the islands of the Spratly under its occupation, earlier than China is doing. Again, America has made no objection.

It shall be noted that China and Vietnam have disputes over some of these islands in South China Sea. China has claimed that it owns all islands/islets on its side of the U-shaped line and it thought that decades ago Vietnam had agreed with China’s claim, made at the time when Hanoi needed China’s support to its independence and unification fight with France and the US. Last year China submitted to the UN its evidence of Vietnam’s past admission of China’s sovereignty over the entire Spratly and Paracel islands. China has difficulty with Vietnam’s negating its past commitment and present occupation oj some of them and subsequent reclamation.

Despite this, China has joined the Declaration on the Code of Conduct (DoC) on the South China Sea with all ASEAN members, committing to using peaceful means only to settle disputes. Lately Beijing has embarked on a process of preparing for negotiating the Code of Conduct (CoC) on the South China Sea, to eventually conclude a multilateral institutional legally bound framework of resolving disputes peacefully in the region. Clearly, China’s handling of the disputes has shown its intent to maintain peace and tranquility collaboratively in South China Sea. It is notable that per the UN Charter, any countries have self-defense right to protect national sovereignty and territorial integrity, with or without specific UN authorization. By working around DoC and CoC parameters on the South China Sea, China is willing to abide by higher standard so as to resolve international disputes through cooperation.

I guess that only works if you assume China has any rights at all to do what it is doing.

China Building Islands in the South China Sea: Unsinkable Aircraft Carriers

Interesting video from James Hardy of IHC Jane's Defence Weekly discussing "Castles made of sand: Chinese land reclamation in the South China Sea":



When a land power wants to set up locations for bases to control the air and sea in areas of interest to them ...

Hat tip to James Kraska, Professor of Oceans Law and Policy, Stockton Center for the Study of International Law, U.S. Naval War College, who also notes the under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Section 121, such "land reclamation" does not create new "islands" under the terms of UNCLOS because Section 121 provides:

Article121

Regime of islands

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. (emphasis added)

Under UNCLOS, this would seem to defeat any claims China might assert to increasing their territorial waters or exclusive economic zone on the basis of 'land" totally reclaimed from the sea. However, where China asserts sovereignty over existing islands or rocks which were "naturally formed" (albeit now enhanced through reclamation) the issue seems to be one of their legal right to assert such sovereignty.

Nonetheless, just as Japan sought to create a "ring of steel" around its conquests in WWII by developing island air bases to dominate the sea lanes that might threaten its gains, so it appears China is building "unsinkable aircraft carriers" to dominate the South China Sea.

Very nice backgrounder on the South China Sea from the CFR authored by Beina Xu South China Sea Tensions which has a nice interactive map which for some reason will not allow me to embed it. I suggest you just visit the backgrounder.

Trans-National Groups: Environmental Activists at Sea

Greenpeace photo © Will Rose / Greenpeace

Been keeping an eye on the Greenpeace "yacht" that carried activists who tried to board a Russian Arctic drilling rig. As you may recall, Russia has now charged "piracy".

Some background on the Greenpeace vessel at Maritime Professional here:

***
While Greenpeace refers to the Arctic Sunrise as a research icebreaker, it is registered with the Government of the Netherlands as a sea-going motor yacht, thus avoiding certain technicalities. It has berthing space for up to 28 persons. The ship has been used in a number of high-visibility environmental and ecological protests, some endangering navigation.
***
Despite the lack of government approval, Arctic Sunrise most recently entered Russian waters of the Barents Sea and protesters attempted to board the oil and gas platform Prirazlomnaya. A Russian Border Guard vessel fired a warning shot over the bow of the Arctic Sunrise after it refused to heave to. The Greenpeace vessel and its personnel are now under detention and federal criminal charges of piracy have been initiated.

As noted before, the UNCLOS definition of piracy is:

''Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).''

So, if the activists were just out to save the planet, how does that fall under the "committed for private ends" part of the definition? Isn't what they were doing a "public good" or at worst, trespassing?

Good question, and one that will have legal scholars arguing. As Maritime Law expert Eugene Kontorovich wrote at The Volokh Conspiracy,

The unusual piracy charges may well be inspired by a Ninth Circuit decision holding the Sea Shepherd’s “Whale Wars” against the Japanese whaling fleet could constitute piracy under the Alien Tort Statute, as OpinioJuris notes. I agreed with the Ninth Circuit in that case, against much protest. The question was whether piracy requires a motive to steal, and the Ninth Circuit held it does not. But the present matter is entirely different. Here it is Russia’s actions that violate international law.

The case cited by Professor Kontorovich is Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, in which the Ninth Circuit overruled a U.S. District Court as the Ninth Circuit

"determined that 'private ends' should not be limited to individuals pursuing 'financial enrichment.' *** . . . the Ninth Circuit that 'private ends' includes those pursued on personal, moral or philosophical grounds." (from St.John's University School of Law Admiralty Practicum Summer 2013 edition)

Professor Kontorovich distinguishes the cases because (1) piracy requires an attack on a ship and an oil rig is not a ship and (2) no act of violence was performed by the Greenpeace activists.

Well, it will be up to a Russian court to sort all that out. However, it does point out that trans-national groups, even those allegedly having the best of intentions, may find themselves bumping against international law as well as the laws of sovereign states that they may not have fully comprehended.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace seeks support in setting "Free the Arctic 30". They also link to a number of legal "experts" who support their view here.

Perhaps they ought to be grateful that they didn't get the Russian "assistance" reportedly provided to suspected Somali pirates.

Note to St. John's Law - the link you cite to the Admiralty Practicum in your print publication is broken.

South China Sea: China's Activity - Vietnam calls it "sabotage"

With tip of the hat to Walter Russell Mead Chinese Sabotage in the South China Sea, it's off to the Chinese "Bad Neighbor Policy" or, perhaps, the "Chinese Big Ugly Stick Policy."

See Vietnam accuses China of maritime sabotage and this Reuters piece, . From the latter:

Vietnam's condemnation came a day after its state oil and gas company, Petrovietnam, accused Chinese boats of sabotaging an exploration operation by cutting a seismic cable being towed behind a Vietnamese boat.

Vietnam's Foreign Ministry spokesman condemned the cable cutting as well as some recent Chinese provincial regulations that identified the disputed Spratly and Paracel islands as Chinese, and a map that did the same thing.

"The actions of the Chinese side have seriously violated Vietnam's sovereignty over the two archipelagos," the spokesman, Luong Thanh Nghi, said in a statement.
***
India has also declared itself ready to deploy naval vessels to the South China Sea to protect its oil-exploration interests there, a new source of tension in a disputed area where fears of conflict have been growing steadily.

Indian navy chief, Admiral D.K Joshi, said on Monday that, while India was not a territorial claimant in the South China Sea, it was prepared to act, if necessary, to protect its maritime and economic interests in the region.

"When the requirement is there, for example, in situations where our country's interests are involved, for example ONGC ... we will be required to go there and we are prepared for that," Joshi told a news conference.

CDR Salamander has a post on the potential Indian deployment here.

Something else to keep and eye on.

China and the South China Sea: Back to the "Cow's Tongue"

Red dashed line is the "Cow's Tongue"

There are a couple of things floating about the internet involving China and its assertion of claims to a large chunk of the South China Sea - a topic that I remind you has been discussed here and on Midrats on several occasions (see China: "The Cow's Tongue", Midrats (Dr. Michael Auslin in first part of show) and, more recently, A War of Words Over the South China Sea).

Senator James Webb has taken on this South China Sea issue as "America's Munich Moment":

So when the senator opines that the United States is ‘approaching a Munich moment with China’ in the South China Sea, it’s worth taking his words seriously.

He levels an incendiary charge. If this is a Munich moment in the making, who are the protagonists? Webb seemingly casts China in the part of Nazi Germany, an aggressive, acquisitive power bent on increasing its geopolitical sway at small states’ expense. This makes President Hu Jintao the counterpart to German dictator Adolf Hitler. President Barack Obama plays the part of Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who traded away much of Czechoslovakia in 1938 in the hope of slaking Hitler’s land hunger.
***
Americans seldom follow Southeast Asian politics, despite the importance of this maritime crossroads to US and global commerce. Filipino leaders maintain that the 1951 security treaty between Manila and Washington covers maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea. Would Americans fight to defend such claims, or are they, like Czech sovereignty for the Western powers in 1938, a secondary affair?

As noted here. the U.S. Senate has taken a stand on the South China Sea by passing a resolution condemning the use of force in the disputed waters in Southeast Asia. See, from Senator Webb's website, U.S. Senate Unanimously “Deplores” China’s Use of Force in South China Sea:

The text of S.Res.217 is below:

Title: Calling for a peaceful and multilateral resolution to maritime territorial disputes in Southeast Asia.

Whereas, on June 9, 2011, 3 vessels from China, including 1 fishing vessel and 2 maritime security vessels, ran into and disabled the cables of an exploration ship from Vietnam, the VIKING 2;
Whereas that use of force occurred within 200 nautical miles of Vietnam, an area recognized as its Exclusive Economic Zone;
Whereas, on May 26, 2011, a maritime security vessel from China cut the cables of another exploration ship from Vietnam, the BINH MINH, in the South China Sea in waters near Cam Ranh Bay;
Whereas, in March 2011, the Government of the Philippines reported that patrol boats from China attempted to ram 1 of its surveillance ships;
Whereas those incidents occurred within disputed maritime territories of the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands, composed of 21 islands and atolls, 50 submerged land atolls, and 28 partly submerged reefs over an area of 340,000 square miles, and the Paracel Islands, a smaller group of islands located south of China’s Hainan Island;
Whereas China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei have disputed territorial claims over the Spratly Islands, and China and Vietnam have a disputed claim over the Paracel Islands;
Whereas the Government of China claims most of the 648,000 square miles of the South China Sea, more than any other nation involved in those territorial disputes;
Whereas, in 2002, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China signed a declaration on the code of conduct of parties in the South China Sea;
Whereas that declaration committed all parties to those territorial disputes to “reaffirm their respect for and commitment to the freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea” and to “resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force”;
Whereas the South China Sea contains vital commercial shipping lines and points of access between the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean;
Whereas, although not a party to these disputes, the United States has a national economic and a security interest in ensuring that no party uses force unilaterally to assert maritime territorial claims in East Asia;
Whereas, in September 2010, the Government of China also deliberately provoked a controversy within the waters of the Senkaku Islands, territory under the legal administration of Japan in the East China Sea;
Whereas the actions of the Government of China in the South China Sea have also affected United States military and maritime vessels transiting through international air space and waters, including the collision of a fighter plane of the Government of China with a United States surveillance plane in 2001, the harassment of the USNS IMPECCABLE in March 2009, and the collision of a Chinese submarine with the sonar cable of the USS JOHN MCCAIN in June 2009;
Whereas, like every nation, the United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation and open access to the maritime commons of Asia;
Whereas the Government of the United States expressed support for the declaration by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China in 2002 on the code of conduct of parties in the South China Sea, and supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all claimants for resolving the various territorial disputes without coercion;
Whereas the United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation and in unimpeded economic development and commerce;
Whereas, on October 11, 2010, Secretary Gates maintained “The United States has always exercised our rights and supported the rights of others to transit through, and operate in, international waters.”;
Whereas, on June 3, 2011, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Secretary Gates stated that “[m]aritime security remains an issue of particular importance for the region, with questions about territorial claims and the appropriate use of the maritime domain presenting on-going challenges to regional stability and prosperity”;
Whereas, on June 4, 2011, at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Liang Guanglie, the Defense Minister from China, said, “China is committed to maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea.”;
Whereas, on June 11, 2011, the Government of Vietnam held a live-fire military exercise on the uninhabited island of Hon Ong, 25 miles off the coast of Vietnam in the South China Sea; and
Whereas, on June 11, 2011, Hong Lei, the Foreign Ministry spokesman of China, stated, “[China] will not resort to force or the threat of force” to resolve the territorial dispute: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate—
(1) reaffirms the strong support of the United States for the peaceful resolution of maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and pledges continued efforts to facilitate a multilateral, peaceful process to resolve these disputes;
(2) deplores the use of force by naval and maritime security vessels from China in the South China Sea;
(3) calls on all parties to the territorial dispute to refrain from threatening force or using force to assert territorial claims; and
(4) supports the continuation of operations by the United States Armed Forces in support of freedom of navigation rights in international waters and air space in the South China Sea.

Now comes Vietnam to assert its complaints against China's encroachment into what it asserts are Vietnamese waters, in The East Sea: Seizing opportunity, getting out of danger:

If we look at the map of the East Sea, the territorial water sovereignty of each country and the international maritime order have been clearly clarified under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS).

China's Nine-Dotted Line Map

But why China dares to put forward the U-shape line to claim up to 80 percent of the East Sea – which could only happen if the wheel of history have reversed to the time before the World War II; when Vietnam, the Philippines and the countries around the East Sea were not recognized as independent nations and when Vietnamese, Filipino and other peoples did not have independence and freedom?
***
In that context, China has two options: 1) Cooperating with other super powers in the world, led by the US, to supply goods for maintaining the international order, the stability and prosperity development based on cooperation and global trade; 2) replacing the US and the US’ strategic allies (West Europe and Japan) to set up the new world order and new military alliance headed by the US in order to force others to obey the new order.

In fact, China has chosen the second. This process began by trampling on the UNCLOS in order to turn the East Sea into its pond. It is uneasy for China to realize that ambition because: 1) it abolishes the sovereignty of countries around the East Sea and goes on the contrary with the trend of the time (the campaign to struggle for independence for nations after the fascism was defeated). 2) In the long run, it can make a bad precedent for appropriating the rights of free navigation and maritime safety on international sea routes. Other countries (except for China) will have to pay fees or be fined or banned from using international sea routes or air routes, which are controlled by China.

The key point here is the clear difference between international maritime routes and maritime routes in China’s waters. When politic or interest conflicts occur, China can use its control right to ban related countries from traveling in the East Sea, though in principle, China commits maintaining free navigation. This will not happen if China cannot impose its real control on the waters bordered by the U-shape line.

The sovereignty disputes in the East Sea are not a bilateral matter, but the issue of regional and international security. China understands it very clearly and China understands that the US, Japan, West Europe and other superpowers in the world, like Russia and India also know its plot.

This game shows adventure in the strategy that China is pursuing. Carefully analyzing that game will create international agreement to solve the East Sea disputes, which China makes up into “bilateral conflicts” on the “indisputable sovereignty” in which China is the victim.

Now, with heads turning toward the U.S. to be a presence, ask yourself, "What fleet do we need?"

And, make no mistake, this is all about naval power and power projection.

South China Sea Pirates: Tanker Attack 1 Sept 10

From the ICC CCS IMB Live Piracy Report:

01.09.2010: 0100 LT: Posn: 03:14.3N – 105:19.6E, Off Pulau Mangkai, South China Sea.

Six pirates armed with guns, knives and steel rods boarded a tanker underway. They entered the bridge and took hostage three crew members and tied up their hands. The pirates also took hostage master when he opened his cabin door. Pirates stole ships cash, crew and ship's properties before escaping.

This is the seventh attack on ships in this area since August 1 (see here) and since the beginning of 2010, there has been a surge in attacks in the area (red arrow on map below points to area of most recent attack):

 And, a slight revision to the ReCAAP map of attacks in the the area since 1 August 10:

 These attacks have led to calls to Indonesia to boost patrols in the area, as set out here:

An international maritime group urged Indonesia on Thursday to increase patrols in the South China Sea after pirates attacked nine vessels in less than three weeks.

The International Maritime Bureau said pirates armed with guns and machetes had robbed tankers and bulk carriers of cash and other valuables in the attacks off the Indonesian islands of Mangkai, Anambas and Natuna.

This brought the number of pirate attacks so far this year to 26 in the area, which is a transit route used by vessels heading southeast to the Singapore Straits or northwest to East Asia and the Pacific Ocean. Only seven attacks were reported all of last year.

The IMB is exactly right - while these are not the ship grabbing attacks like those conducted by Somali pirates, they are dangerous (3 sailors injured in August) and disruptive of a major sea lane.

The pirates, once again, are operating in an area where the territorial waters of two countries meet - Malaysia and Indonesia (Pulau Mangkai is Indonesian).

This may become important if Malaysia and Indonesia don't make an agreement covering the area, as noted in older post:  

Some Piracy Law from UNCLOS concerning the right of hot pursuit:

Article 105. Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft
On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.
***
Article 111. Right of hot pursuit
1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the  competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe  that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State.  Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its  boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the  territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may  only be continued ouside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if  the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the  time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the  contiguous zone receives the order to stop, the ship giving the order  should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone.  If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article  33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a violation  of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established.

2. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations  in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including  safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and  regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this  Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf,  including such safety zones.

3. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters  the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State.
***

Somalia: Captured pirates set free

With a hat tip to commenter "Hyperchaotic" to an earlier post, a disappointing report of the result of capturing pirates at sea :Pirates released on beach:

After six days on board the Danish warship Absalon, ten Somali pirates were put ashore on a Somali beach during the night and set free. All 10 pirates were in good health and were landed in the area they are believed to have come from.
***
Although their personal effects were returned to them, all weapons, communications devices and ladders were confiscated.

The decision to release the alleged pirates came following discussions Tuesday between Denmark's foreign and defence ministries on exactly what should happen to the 10 men. Although Absalon is on a U.N. sanctioned mission and part of an international force, the legal conditions surrounding the detention of suspected pirates is unclear.
***
"It is an illusion to think that these 10 would be brought to trial by the Somali authorities," says Commander Dan B. Termansen of Admiral Danish Fleet Headquarters.

Comm. Termansen said that if countries from which pirates emanate are not prepared to take cases to court 'there's nothing we can do'.

This is so wrong.

Wait until one of these released pirates kills a crewman or passenger on a ship...

I find Article 105 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to be pretty clear:

Article105

Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

Emphasis added.

Maybe the Danish ship lacks yardarms... or something...

UPDATE: More on the release here:

"It was the lesser of two evils, for the other solution, which would have made me uneasy, would have been to hand them over to a regime where they risked being tortured and killed," Defence Minister Soeren Gade told Denmark's TV2 news.

Gade announced the news to deputies late on Tuesday, saying that under Danish law it was not possible to prosecute them because of a lack of evidence.

They had considered transferring them to other vessels in the multinational Task Force 150 fleet operating off the coast of Somalia, but rejected the idea, he added.

On September 17, just two days after taking command of the task force, the Danish navy vessel Absalon intercepted two suspect high-speed boats spotted by a Danish helicopter in the Gulf of Aden and detained the 10 armed men on board.

The men were armed with sub-machine guns and four anti-tank shells sometimes used by pirates during attacks on civilian vessels, said Denmark's naval command.

I am just stunned. The standard of evidence must be pretty damn high in Denmark...

UPDATE2: Is it just me, or does it seem to you that the question about what to do with any captured pirates should have been addressed before setting sail to patrol pirate infested waters with the intent to take on the pirates?

Russia: Another effort to expand- the Sea of Okhotsk

Steeljaw was kind enough to send along a link to this article reporting on Russia's continuing effort to claim rights over the Sea of Okhotsk and points east using the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):

Russian geologists intend to prove that the Sea of Okhotsk's central enclave, as well as all its other parts excluding a small piece in the south belong to Russia, a Russian tabloid wrote Monday.

Moskovsky Komsomolets said the question concerns 56,400 square kilometers (21,780 square miles) of deepened continental shelf under the Sea of Okhotsk, a part of the western Pacific Ocean, which is legally beyond the 200-mile Russian economic zone.

In 2001, Russia addressed the UN continental shelf commission with a similar request, which was turned down at the time. The UN demanded more data and evidence that the enclave is a continuation of the continental shelf, said Viktor Poselov, a deputy director of the ocean and geology research institute.

The Federal Agency for the Management of Mineral Resources and the institute sent a new special expedition to the Sea of Okhotsk to gather evidence for Russia's claim. Poselov said the collected data clearly indicates the sea is Russian territory with only some of the Kuril Islands being under dispute.

Russia's 2001 filing can be found here. The map was part of that filing. I've circled the central area of the Sea of O in green.

The 2002 U.S. response (here) focused on the Russian arctic claims which were made in conjunction with the Sea of O filing.Canada and Denmark demurred but Norway also disputed the Russian arctic claims.

The Japanese response (here) focused on the disputed islands and on-going discussions between the Russians and Japan concerning the "Four Islands" that are the center of the dispute and by which the Russians attempt to expand eastward.

UPDATE: In a sidebar, Steeljaw has another note touching on the Russian use of the Sea of Okhotsk here.

Piracy Reports

Latest Piracy Report from ICC Commercial Crime Services highlights:

27.05.2008: 0748 UTC: 14:04.30N-049:23.72E: Gulf of Aden.
A suspicious speedboat, with five persons, was noticed proceeding towards a tanker underway. Master increased speed, took evasive manoeuvres and called the coalition forces. Unable to intercept the vessel, after about forty minutes the boat aborted and moved away. At the same time, another boat was seen crossing the bows at a distance of 3 nm.

28.05.2008: 1200 UTC: 13:43N-048:50E: Gulf of Aden.
Four suspicious high-speed boats, length about 15 meters, wooden/plastic gray hull with four persons in each boat tried to approach a tanker underway. Master took evasive manoeuvres to prevent the speedboats from approaching closer. One speedboat crossed the bow at a distance of 0.5 miles. Later, the boats aborted and moved away in a south-easterly direction.
***
28.05.2008: 1040 UTC: 13:09N - 048:58E, Gulf of Aden.
Four heavily armed pirates, in a speedboat, attacked and hijacked a general cargo ship underway. They sailed the vessel into Somali territorial waters. Further details awaited.

Take a look at the two maps in this post (clicking on them should cause them to enlarge). The First shows the Gulf of Aden with 12 mile territorial limits for the countries forming the Gulf (green is Yemen, violet Dijbouti, red Somalia -and the 12 miles is very approximate and except for Yemen, does not really include offshore islands). The ocean area in between the territorial waters is "high seas" and acts of piracy occurring there and pirates captured there are subject international law concerning pirates. Inside the territorial limits, the is no "piracy," but rather "sea robbery" subject to the sovereign law of the state owning the those territorial waters.

It is possible for an act of sea robbery to occur in Yemeni territorial waters and for the the "sea robbers" to escape from Yemeni waters and run toward Somali waters. They can be pursued by Yemeni forces up to the point where they cross into Somali territorial waters where they become a Somali issue. In the Strait of Malaaca, where the territorial waters meet in the middle of the strait, it was, before recent cooperative efforts, a frequent pirate ploy to move in and out of such waters. The other map, courtesy of ICC CCS, shows the locations of pirate attacks in 2008 in the Gulf of Aden.

Now, if I were placing and concentrating naval vessels in the Gulf of Aden for "escort" purposes, I have a pretty good idea of where I might place "chaser" and "barrier" ships to slow the pirates of the Gulf of Aden down. How about you?

Latest ONI Worldwide Threats to Shipping Report (to 28 May 08) here. Highlights:

1. GULF OF ADEN: Warning from IMB Piracy Reporting Center, 26 May 08. A total of
six attempted attacks and two hijackings have been reported by vessels recently since 19 May 08 at 1720 UTC. The attempted attacks were around 12:49.3Nñ050:36.3E, 13:16.2N-049:08.7E, 13.25.2Nñ047:57.8E, 14:02Nñ050:46E, 13:16.2N-049:08.7E, 12:45.7Nñ046:43.6E, and the two hijackings were located at 13:09N-048:58E (LEHMANN TIMBER) and 13:13N-050:49E
(AMIYA SCAN). Pirates firing at vessels with rocket propelled grenades may attempt to board and possibly hijack. All vessels transiting the Gulf of Aden are advised to take additional precautionary measures and maintain a strict 24 hrs anti piracy visual watch and radar watch. Look out for small suspicious boats converging to own vessel. Report all incidents including suspicious sighting to IMB piracy reporting centre (IMB).
***
7. INDIAN OCEAN: New south Asian regional port security organization has been formed to combat a wide range of threats, from illegal fishing and human and drug-smuggling to terrorism and piracy, 20 May 08. The South Asia Regional Port Security Cooperative (SARPSCO) consists of nine nations sharing the waters of the Indian Ocean: Bangladesh, Comoros, India, Madagascar, the Maldives, Mauritius, Oman, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The initiative was inaugurated in the Maldives on 19 May 08 at a four-day conference called 'Partnering for a Safer Sea', hosted by the Maldives Ministry of Transport and Communication. The US is not a member but is supporting the initiative through its Coast Guard Activities Far East. US Coast Guard chief Rear Admiral Craig E Bone was quoted as saying in a keynote speech that it was important for the region to work together on port and maritime security to save
lives and prevent economic damage by thwarting criminal and terrorist acts before they occur. Any disruption of the maritime flow of oil supplies in the Indian Ocean region would have disastrous economic consequences, he said. The formation of SARPSCO ìsends a clear message and a warning to terrorists and criminals in the South Asia and Indian Ocean region that they will be detected, they will be interdicted and their activities will not be toleratedî (LM: Daily News).
***
H. INDIAN OCEAN-EAST AFRICA:
.
1. GULF OF ADEN: Cargo ship (LEHMANN TIMBER) hijacked 28 May 08 at 1040 UTC while underway in position 13:09N-048:58E, 56NM south of the Yemen coast. The vessel was attacked by four heavily armed pirates. Lehmann GmbH shipping company said in a statement that the owners continue to maintain regular contact with the vessel and all 15 members of the crew are well in view of the circumstances (Operator, UKMTO, AP, LM: International Hearld Tribune, Xinhua).
.
2. GULF OF ADEN: Cargo ship (AMIYA SCAN) hijacked 25 May 08 at 2235 local time while underway in position 13:13N-050:49E, 117NM south of Qishn, Yemen, 80NM off the Somali coast. An unknown number of pirates hijacked the vessel and took a total of nine Russian and Filipino crewmembers hostage. The vessel was sailing to Costanza Port, Romania from Mombasa, Kenya carrying a decommissioned oil platform when it was seized. Reider Shipping BV, the vesselís owners, said it was in contact with the pirates but declined to comment on the captors' demands out of concern for the crew's safety (IMB, Operator, UKMTO, LL, CNN).
.
3. GULF OF ADEN: Bulk carrier reported suspicious approach 25 May 08 at 0610 local time/0310 UTC while underway in position 13:25.2Nñ047:57.8E, 32NM off the Yemen coast. Three grey boats closed in on the vessel. There were four persons in each boat armed with machine guns. The boats followed the vessel at a distance of one cable and the armed men were shouting in a foreign language. The master raised the alarm, all crew mustered and anti piracy measures were enforced. After following the vessel for 25 minutes, the boats moved away at 0650 local time (IMB, Operator).
.
4. GULF OF ADEN: Tanker fired upon 24 May 08 at 1420 local time/1100 UTC while
underway in position 13:58N-050:42E, 103NM south of Qishn, Yemen. Two boats with four persons each closed in on the vessel. The pirates opened fire with automatic guns and a rocket propelled grenade. One RPG round hit and damaged the port bridge wing. Evasive maneuvers prevented the pirates from boarding. No injuries to crew and no pollution. After breaking off the two boats were reported to be drifting in the same vicinity (IMB, Operator, UKTMO).
.
5. GULF OF ADEN: Bulk carrier fired upon 23 May 08 at 0830 local time/0430 UTC while underway in position 13:16.2Nñ049:08.7E, 75NM south of Al Mukalla, Yemen and 118NM north of Bossaso, Somalia. One fiberglass skiff with a single outboard motor and four gunmen onboard approached the vessel from the port quarter. The gunmen opened fire on the bridge and accommodations with one rocket propelled grenade and five bursts of automatic gunfire. Vessel took evasive maneuvers and escaped with minimal damage. No injuries to crew reported. The master observed one white hulled fishing dhow approximately 6NM away that he thought could
be acting as a mother ship. The master warned all nearby ships via Ch 16. The vessel resumed voyage. ONI COMMENT: Photo of attacking skiff shows pirates carried a hook ladder of approximately six meters in length. Investments in anti-piracy measures are always encouraged for all vessels operating anywhere near Somalia. Vessels with gunwales within reach of six meter hook ladders are at a higher risk of being successfully boarded and should take extra precautions (IMB, Operator, UKTMO, ONI).
.
6. GULF OF ADEN: Yacht reported suspicious approach 22 May 08 at 1430 UTC, while underway in position 13:21.29N-048:25.96E, 38NM off the coast of Yemen. A speedboat crossed the bow of the vessel while two other speedboats approached from the stern. The skipper increased its speed and enforced anti piracy measures to prevent possible boarding. After a while, the speedboats moved away. The suspicious boats seemed to have been launched from a dhow, which was in the position 13:20.9N-049:37.32E. The dhow is described as 20m in length, a red hull and a white superstructure (IMB, UKTMO).
.
7. GULF OF ADEN: Container ship reported attempted boarding 19 May 08 at 1500 local time while underway in position 12:49.3N-050:36.3E, approximately 145NM northwest of Bossaso, Somalia. Two small speedboats approached the vessel from the bow. One of the speedboats had four pirates armed with automatic weapons and rocket launcher. The pirates aimed the rocket launcher towards the bridge and reportedly attempted to board the vessel. †The master raised the alarm, took evasive maneuvers and the crew mustered. After 10 minutes, the suspected pirates aborted and moved away. The boats were seen approaching two other ships about five miles off (IMB).

8. GULF OF ADEN: General cargo ship (VICTORIA) hijacked 17 May 08 at 0905 local time while underway in position 02:13.19N-046:49.38E, 40NM off Mogadishu, Somalia. The Jordanian-flagged vessel, owned by Marwan Shipping Company, with a crew of 21, was transporting 4,200 tons of bagged sugar from Mumbai, India to Mogadishu when it was hijacked by unknown gunmen. The BBC World Service reported pirates tried to dock the vessel off Hobyo but the local residents resented their presence. Shariff Ali Guure, a member of the Hobyo Traders, told reporters that the pirates should leave the area or face confrontation. According to local media reporting, the vessel owners and Somali officials are conducting negotiations.
Marwan Shipping reported that the hijackers are demanding a ransom, but the sum was not revealed. All crewmembers are reportedly safe. As of 23 May 08, the vessel was reportedly released (IMB, AFP, AP, BBC, LM: Shipping Times UK, The Times of India, Indo-Asian News Service, Hindustan Times, nationmedia.com).
.
9. GULF OF ADEN: Container ship reported suspicious approach 15 May 08 at 0900 UTC while underway in position 13:02.6N-045:42.6E, 32NM northeast of Port Aden. Four suspicious speedboats reportedly chased the vessel. Each vessel had four people onboard. The vessels speed was about 18knts but they did not close in. Two boats sped up to 22knts and closed in. The vessel increased speed and took evasive maneuvers. Thirty minutes later, the speedboats moved away (IMB, UKTMO, Operator).
.
10. GULF OF ADEN: Tanker reported suspicious approach 15 May 08 while underway in position 15:40.8N-052:41E, approximately 59NM northeast of Qishn, Yemen. The vessel observed a high speed boat doing 24knts approaching the vessel from the port quarter. The crew on the poop deck monitored the boat which came within 1.4NM and then altered course away from the vessel. The boat was steering 315T and approached from southeast. The boat was dark blue with four persons onboard (Operator, UKMTO, IMB).
.
11. GULF OF ADEN: Tanker reported suspicious approach 13 May 08 while underway in position 12:43.1N-045:42.6E, 31NM east southeast of Port Aden, Yemen. Four speedboats were in close proximity of the vessel. Two of the speedboats were detected on the port side and two speedboats on the starboard side. The master sounded the general alarm and briefed the crew on anti-piracy precautions. Each speedboat was manned by two persons. No weapons were
observed. However, the master noticed concealed items within the boat. At 0615 UTC, the master altered its course to the starboard side. The master observed the speedboats achieve a speed of over 20kts, but were having difficulty in the wind conditions. At 0620 UTC, the two speedboats on the starboard side crossed the shipís bow and attempted to approach the vessel's port side. The master altered its course to the starboard side in order to make the port side under swell direction. The master alerted the Company Security Officer in Dubai, UAE, and announced the speedboats position via VHF ch. 16. At 0635 UTC, the vessel started to gain
distance from the four speedboats. At 0635 UTC, Marshall Islands Duty Officer was advised about the situation via telephone by the Ship Manager in Dubai. At 0640 UTC, the four speed boats altered its course to the port side, shore direction.† Master reported again the position of the speed boats via VHF Ch.16. Fortunately, the master was able to maneuver the vessel to take evasive action, thereby successfully mitigating the threat from the four speed boats, which headed back towards the general vicinity of the Yemen coast. UKMTO NOTE - This incident was investigated by UKMTO and assessed as fishing activity. The vesselís position was close to
land and in a known area of high fishing activity. On speaking to the master he told UKMTO that the two boats forward kept on the port side and seemed to force the vessel to starboard side. No shots were fired and in each of the four boats only 2 people per boat were seen (Operators, UKMTO, IMB).

Busy times.

UPDATE: Some Piracy Law from UNCLOS concerning the right of hot pursuit:

Article 105. Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft
On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.
***
Article 111. Right of hot pursuit
1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued ouside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone receives the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established.

2. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.

3. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State.
***

UPDATE2: The International Maritime Organization is happy, too. I guess a couple of years of effort may be "high speed" in UN terms. UPDATE3: The UN relief agencies, who have been trying to keep Somalis alive but who have been troubled by pirates and land sharks, are also happy.

Somali Pirates: Let the whining begin

Despite protestations by the French that their recent foray into Somalia to grab a few pirates resulted in no civilian deaths, some in Somalia not only disagree but are demanding compensation, including for the truck the French sniper took out. All this reported here:

Somali regional rulers Thursday demanded compensation for civilian deaths they say occurred during a French military operation against suspected pirates last week.

They said three herdsmen were killed during the operation that followed the release for ransom of a 30-strong luxury yacht crew and insisted four of the suspects captured by French troops weren't pirates.

"We are not complaining about the operation against the pirates, but we are talking about civilian casualties," said Abdiaziz Yusuf Harin, Puntland's Jariban district commissioner. "Three herdsmen died in the area during the raid."

Harin also demanded compensation for a vehicle destroyed during the raid, saying it didn't belong to the pirates. The official didn't specify the amount of compensation being sought.

Officials from Somalia's semiautonomous northern region of Puntland said only two of the six suspects captured were pirates.

"They arrested six people whom we heard are awaiting trial, but we can confirm that four of them are innocent," Harin said. "They were not involved in piracy.

"There are two people confirmed to be pirates among the six. The other four were khat (mild narcotic leaves) traders selling their goods to the pirates," when they were snatched, said Dahir Abdulkadir Ahmed, the governor of the Mugug region where the operation was carried out.

"We call on the French government to release the innocents and charge the two pirates," he said.

Judging by the terrain, if three goat herders were killed in that area, they must of been the three unluckiest men then alive to be in that area at that exact time.

I note that instead of hanging the pirates from the nearest yardarm, France is waiting for Somali permission to try the pirates in France on charges of "organized criminality." As previously noted here, these pirates were taken in Somali territory and not the high seas, although seemingly with the permission of some form of the local "government."

Under United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Article 105:

Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

Lawyers will begin picking apart this matter under "international law" - pointing out that France did not apprehend the pirates on the high seas. UNCLOS defines "high seas" in Art. 86 as

"...all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State."

I assume the argument will be made that France's arrest was illegal.

France, on the other hand, can assert they had permission to be there, that the "arrest" had to be on the beach for the protection of the hostages, and that in point of fact, that part of Somalia is in the words of Art 105, "outside the jurisdiction of any State."

Or France could simply ignore "international law."

Who's going to punish France if it does?

The yardarm would have been easier.

UPDATE: Apparently the official Somali government is willing to cede responsibility for its territorial waters, as set out here:

Somalia's President Abdullah Yusuf Ahmed said Wednesday he would authorize international measures to fight pirates on high seas that have seized relief goods and recently a French luxury ship and passengers off the Somalian coasts. Ahmed attended a UN Security Council's debate on ways to help the African Union in its missions of peace throughout the continent. He said his war-torn country is confronted with too many internal problems.

"Since Somalia cannot at the moment guard its vast coast, we would want to authorize the international community to take action and combat piracy at the high seas of Somalia until we can effectively undertake the security of our territorial waters," Ahmed said.

The French government has proposed a naval group to deter attacks by pirates off the Somalian coasts, where pirates seized the luxury ship.

Somalia officials previously had asked the U.S. to help patrol its Exclusive Economic Zone for violations by international fish poachers, as set out here. See also this post and the links therein.

Further indication that Somalia has ceased to exist as a state can be found in this quote:

He also called for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force with the mandate to help Somalia's transition government achieve "fuller reconciliation, stablization, disarmament and durable peace."

The UN force would also help Somalia in forming security institutions for the government, including police and intelligence.

If you don't control your shores or your interior, what are you?

UPDATE2: VOA has a series on "failed states" here, here,here, and here. As usual, the liberal answer is to dump money on them.

Democratic U.S. Congressman Adam Smith says infrastructure projects make a difference in a country's recovery.

"There are businesses out there that are successful, but a lot of the time, they had to get a road built by the government in order to make sure they had the infrastructure," he said. "They had to get a fiber-optic built. They had to get bridges built. So I think assistance does help these countries become less failed, if you will, and prosperous."