Military action (and, indeed, enforcing sanctions with surveillance using military ships is almost certainly military action) is not a directly permitted operation (it's neither navigation nor overflight).
"article 90 defines the right to navigation as the right of every State “to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas”.
This is what I'm talking about.... There is no distinguishing commercial navigation from military navigation. You are working off of a interpretation in what you have already claimed to be civil law.
If you actually read the articles the only time they specify a difference between commercials or military is in regards to aircraft.
It's not an operation involved with "operating ships or aircraft", and it's not an operation explicitly allowed under UNCLOS by any means.
Lol, the navy doesn't operate ships or aircraft?
UNCLOS does not specify that all surface traffic is permitted.
Yes it does....so long as it is flying a flag from any state.
Given that, UNCLOS specifies that states should defer to the coastal states rules and regulations.
So long as they do not conflict with rights protected by unclos.
However, UNCLOS only directly gives the coastal state right to intervene in matters regarding living resources and does not explicitly allow intervention for non-resource interests
Which is exactly what my original post explained.....
Based on this and our other chat about the housing issues in China, I don't think you are an idiot or anything. I just don't think you are being academically honest, and have adopted an "ends justify the means" mentality common on Lemmy.
On the other post, you accused me of being completely wrong, but eventually admitted that they made a miscalculation in policy. Which under the mixed economy of China, is still a miscalculation of supply and demand.
I understand the reasons why people jump to defend any criticism of China on Lemmy, there is definitely people on here that take any opportunities to slander the nation. However, I haven't made any criticisms that aren't academically honest interpretations of how they execute their policy. I am also willing to defend the policy that I find admirable, such as I did with the other thread when the poster accused them of pricing people into homelessness.
Every nation deserves criticism of some sort, humans are exceptionally hard to govern. Pretending otherwise and attempting to dissuade any level of criticism of any nation does nothing but make you seem fanatical or disingenuous.
I don't foresee this conversation really leading anywhere productive, as we have regressed to what I suspect is a purposely semantic dispute. Have a good one.