{"id":20883,"date":"2015-06-05T10:53:05","date_gmt":"2015-06-05T00:53:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=20883"},"modified":"2015-06-09T14:16:47","modified_gmt":"2015-06-09T04:16:47","slug":"australia-and-the-freedoms-of-navigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/australia-and-the-freedoms-of-navigation\/","title":{"rendered":"Australia and the Freedoms of Navigation"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n Ringed as we are by archipelagos, freedoms of navigation and overflight (FON) are extremely important to Australia.<\/p>\n The archipelagic sea lanes (ASL) passage introduced by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) guarantees the non-suspendable right of ships and aircraft to transit through the waters of an archipelagic state, such as Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Philippines, provided they use ASLs designated by the archipelagic state. Or, if no such lanes have been designated, transit is allowed along routes normally used for international navigation or overflight.<\/p>\n Only Indonesia<\/a> has so far designated ASLs. However, these are just a partial designation as the designated ASLs only provide for a north-south transit and there is no east-west sea lane through the Java and Flores seas. Because\u00a0this is a route normally used for international navigation, Australia, the\u00a0US and possibly other countries continue to exercise their right of ASL passage through these seas, although this appears contrary to Indonesian regulations.<\/p>\n Unlike the US, Australia doesn\u2019t have a formal FON program, and we rarely follow the US example of formally protesting \u2018excessive claims\u2019 to maritime jurisdiction. The US is the only country in the world with a formal FON program. It has three elements: bilateral and multilateral consultations with other governments that may be planning new claims regarded as contrary to international law; diplomatic representations and protests; and operational assertions of rights by US military units. The philosophy of the US FON program is that if claims and constraints aren\u2019t challenged, they may over time be considered\u00a0accepted by the international community<\/p>\n During the fiscal year 2014, the US conducted operational assertions<\/a> to challenge excessive maritime claims by the following regional countries: China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Vietnam. The claims by Indonesia challenged by the US included the partial designation of archipelagic sea lanes, and the requirement for prior notification by foreign warships to enter Indonesia\u2019s territorial sea and archipelagic waters.<\/p>\n According to the US Maritime Claims Reference Manual<\/a>, three claims made by Australia have been protested by the US. These include Australia\u2019s establishment of territorial sea straight baselines and declaration of Anxious, Encounter, Lacepede and Rivoli Bays as historic bays. The US doesn\u2019t recognise these claims and has lodged a diplomatic protest against them. However, while the US routinely conducts FON operations against historic bays elsewhere in the world, it has not undertaken them against the bays claimed by Australia. Secondly, the US has protested Australia\u2019s claim to an EEZ around the Australian Antarctic Territory.<\/p>\n Australia\u2019s final disagreement with the US on FON is our introduction in 2006 of compulsory pilotage<\/a> through the Torres Strait and the Great Northeast Channel. This regime doesn\u2019t apply to ships with sovereign immunity, but due to difficulties of navigation in the area, USN vessels still routinely take pilots for the passage of the strait. However, in requesting a pilot, a USN ship will note the \u2018request is voluntary and not based on the mandatory pilotage scheme\u2019.<\/p>\n A noteworthy FON incident involving Australia and China occurred in 2001.<\/p>\n