Dear Friends

I question the view that my statements are simply political diatribe whereas the spirited response of others are somehow devoid of political leanings. I should however not be surprised as this is an argumentative and exclusionary technique that every scholar from the developing world is used to. Of course I take the view that state vessels and aircraft from certain states tend to stoke international tensions when they patrol disputed waters in other regions, far from home and in a repeated and systematic manner. If this is political view then how the contrary view is any less political confuses me. The truth as to where exactly the aircraft or vessel was actually navigating is usually lost in the heat of the occasion. We don't have all the facts with us and we probably will never do as we are not government officials and we only discuss the matter in a rather pseudo-academic manner. While I will not claim to have a Nobel prize in the law of the sea I do know that the law is not entirely clear upon the point of entry of state vessels into other states territories. Whether the exact location of the US ship is Chinese territory again may be up for debate but I dare say that if the reverse were the situation and a Chinese naval ship is found within US 'claimed' maritime territories the commentary emanating from some quarters will be vastly different. If there is need to point at literature on the ambiguities in law in relation to state vessels. I will point at Nicholas Grief's excellent work.
Nicholas Grief, Public International Law in the Airspace of the High Seas (1994). If more 'political views' are needed about previous egregious behavior in other sovereign spaces by certain states then of course see Oduntan, Gbenga(2003) The Generational-Technological Gap in Air and Space Law. Journal of Space Law, 29 (1). pp. 185-204.

 

Regards

Gbenga 
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:13 pm
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] re mini crisis or not
To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I response to Mr. Oduntan's commentary, I should mention that
> the Yellow Sea
> (Huang hai in Mandarin) is named for the Yellow River (Huang he)
> and the
> distinctive color--yellow brown of the sea's northern
> reaches.  The South China Sea
> is named the Southern Sea (Nan hai) in Mandarin.  Place
> names--especially of
> marine features--do not indicate sovereignty or ownership. 
> The names in
> Chinese do not support Mr. Oduntan's apparent premise that the
> areas were
> recognized as Chinese--even by the Chinese.
>
> The PRC has never delimited the outer limit of its EEZ.  In
> the South China
> Sea, the area in question is also claimed by Vietnam. 
> Therefore a Chinese
> claim to exclusive jurisdiction in the area is disputed by its
> neighbors as well
> as Western maritime powers.  The US ship was beyond China's
> territorial sea in
> a disputed area of the South China Sea.  Under these
> circumstances, it seems
> unlikely that the ship was engaged in actions that violate
> international law,
> but I leave that to the legal scholars to discuss.
>
> I do not think that the Int-Boundaries List should be a forum
> for political
> diatribes, but reasoned discussion.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dan Dzurek
>

Dr. Gbenga Oduntan
Lecturer in International Commercial Law,
Kent Law School,
Eliot College,
University of Kent,
Canterbury,
Kent CT2 7NS, UK.

Phone:
Switchboard 0044 (0)1227 764000 (ext 4817)
Direct Line 0044 (0)1227 824817
Fax: 0044 (0) 1227 827831

Email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/people/index.htm