Read on Twitter
The US FONOP against India's restrictions on foreign military exercises in its EEZ is based on the US government's view that India's position violates international law.
The reality—as with most contentious matters in international law, politics, & history—is complicated.
1/10
The reality—as with most contentious matters in international law, politics, & history—is complicated.
1/10
My @MITPoliSci dissertation on the politics of how countries interpret the law of the sea — which was based on archival & interview research in six countries, including the US & India — traces the history of this issue.
Following are excerpts of the most relevant passage:
2/10
Following are excerpts of the most relevant passage:
2/10
"Prior to UNCLOS III*, few states purported to claim jurisdiction over foreign military activities in spatial terms beyond a relatively narrow territorial sea during peacetime."
[*UNCLOS III = Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held from 1973 to 1982]
3/10
!["Prior to UNCLOS III*, few states purported to claim jurisdiction over foreign military activities in spatial terms beyond a relatively narrow territorial sea during peacetime."[*UNCLOS III = Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held from 1973 to 1982]3/10](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eyn9rJcWYAYvJAs.png "\"Prior to UNCLOS III*, few states purported to claim jurisdiction over foreign military activities in spatial terms beyond a relatively narrow territorial sea during peacetime.\"[*UNCLOS III = Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held from 1973 to 1982]3/10")
[*UNCLOS III = Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held from 1973 to 1982]
3/10
"The dynamics of decolonization and changes in military technology and activities began to shift global sentiment on this issue. After being subjected to the naval power projection of colonial empires, many formerly colonized states desired to flip the script..."
4/10
4/10
"The uncertainty involved in these questions was in turn a source of anxiety for the naval powers... they would only support the new 200 nm EEZ regime on the condition that high seas freedoms, including for military vessels and aircraft, would not be affected in the EEZ."
5/10
5/10
"Meanwhile, developing nations... were cognizant of the basic power realities that would require conceding to the naval powers on this point in order to obtain their desired economic concessions from those powers."
6/10
6/10
But "many developing and postcolonial states never fully accepted the legitimacy of military activities in the EEZ... They pushed for the inclusion of general, vague provisions that would enable them to contest the legitimacy of military activities... viewed as threatening"
7/10
7/10
"As a result of these unresolved tensions, the convention is ambiguous on this highly political subject. This is most evident in five areas..."
[see image of dissertation text for details on those five areas]
8/10
!["As a result of these unresolved tensions, the convention is ambiguous on this highly political subject. This is most evident in five areas..."[see image of dissertation text for details on those five areas]8/10](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eyn99PGW8AIzR8n.png "\"As a result of these unresolved tensions, the convention is ambiguous on this highly political subject. This is most evident in five areas...\"[see image of dissertation text for details on those five areas]8/10")
[see image of dissertation text for details on those five areas]
8/10
9/10
10/10
