Indonesia Indonesian Navy, Tentara Nasional Indonesia-Angkatan Laut (TNI-AL)

[Van Kravchenko]

if it belongs to TUDM then I'm really annoyed

You should start to identify the visual difference between F/A 18 hornet and F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet.

Dont be like people, to think either jet is use same fuselage.

 

[JATOSINT]

Article 58:

​

3.In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.​

​

Article 87:

1.The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked.Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia,both for coastal and land-locked States:​

(a) freedom of navigation;​

(b) freedom of overflight;​

(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;​

(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;​

(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;​

(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.​

​

2.These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas,and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area​

Article 88-115 is about safety, rights, exclusions, exceptions etc and high seas.

As the writer on the NST article explained, the 'rights and duties of the coastal State' in Article 58 is limited to "sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources" (Article 56)

In other words, economic rights, not security/military rights

 

[trishna_amrta]

Chapter 4: Military Activities in an EEZ – Law of the Sea

Military Activities in an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) In May 2016, following a “dangerous” intercept by two Chinese J-11 fighter jets that approached within 50 feet of an U.S. EP-3 Aries reconnaissance aircraft, China’s Foreign Ministry demanded that the U.S.

sites.tufts.edu

Legality of Military Activities in an EEZ​

Most of the States that participated in the LOSC negotiations supported the view that military operations, exercises, and activities have always been regarded as internationally lawful uses of the sea and that the right to conduct such activities would continue for all States within the EEZs of other States.

Keep calm and stay SR

Maybe (which part/article of UNCLOS are you citing?)

Unwise to restrict foreign vessels in Malaysia's EEZ | New Straits Times

THE focus of National Defence University Malaysia Department of Strategic Studies lecturer Dr B.A. Hamzah’s commentary on “Foreign military exercises in straits harm sovereignty” (NST, May 16) and “Uncharted manoeuvres in waters” (RSIS Commentary, May 9) is the unilateral declaration submitted...

www.nst.com.my

Article 58:

1.In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.​

​

2.Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.​

​

3.In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.​

​

Article 87:

1.The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked.Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia,both for coastal and land-locked States:​

(a) freedom of navigation;​

(b) freedom of overflight;​

(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;​

(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;​

(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;​

(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.​

​

2.These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas,and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area​

Article 88-115 is about safety, rights, exclusions, exceptions etc and high seas.

UNCLOS has no relevant whatsoever with this flyover.

I'm writing in my "educator mode". So, rather than giving a straight answer I implore you guys to scrutinize the legal aspect. And more important what I've stated that UNCLOS has no relevancy whatsoever.

 

[schuimpjes]

UNCLOS has no relevant whatsoever with this flyover.

I'm writing in my "educator mode". So, rather than giving a straight answer I implore you guys to scrutinize the legal aspect. And more important what I've stated that UNCLOS has no relevancy whatsoever.

I think I know your pseudonym on Twitter, sir. Wkwk

 

[trishna_amrta]

I think I know your pseudonym on Twitter, sir. Wkwk

Wrong person. I only use my full real name & credential on Twitter, Facebook, Linked, and Google. No pseudonym on any of those sites,

 

[schuimpjes]

Wrong person. I only use my full real name & credential on Twitter, Facebook, Linked, and Google. No pseudonym on any of those sites,

So I wrong about it then wkwk. I notice the similarities on interests, how you write with that name in Twitter.

It's not warkop indo, I'm so wrong

 

[Anmdt]

UNCLOS has no relevant whatsoever with this flyover.

I'm writing in my "educator mode". So, rather than giving a straight answer I implore you guys to scrutinize the legal aspect. And more important what I've stated that UNCLOS has no relevancy whatsoever.

Anything done in EEZ shall be done in accordance with safety regulations, such as, if it is an unattended flight the transponder should be turned on, if it is a exercise military exercise, sea men, coastal state and other states should be notified.

NAVTEX - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a reason why NAVTEX exists, primarily for safety. However this flyover is not bound to permission of Indonesia, but should be carried by respecting safety regulations adopted by Indonesia, these two things are discrete.

Typical NAVTEX also indicates a ceiling, which means it has something to do with flights.

As the writer on the NST article explained, the 'rights and duties of the coastal State' in Article 58 is limited to "sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources" (Article 56)

In other words, economic rights, not security/military rights

Article 58 is about the other states shall respect coastal state while practicing their rights in the EEZ
Article 87 is about the rights of other states in the EEZ.
And i think it is clear, if Indonesia has allowed this to happen (like USN has notified and took necessary measures), there is nothing wrong in there, if USN has not notified Indonesia and didn't comply with safety regulations then it is a violation.

The reason why a NAVTEX is issued to notify sea men and other states, for safety.

When it is about China and Chinese ships /aircrafts Indonesians react as if EEZ is part of territorial waters,and then treating like international waters when it is US, but why?
It is neither of the them,but it is an EEZ with specific rights.

 

[JATOSINT]

UNCLOS has no relevant whatsoever with this flyover.

I'm writing in my "educator mode". So, rather than giving a straight answer I implore you guys to scrutinize the legal aspect. And more important what I've stated that UNCLOS has no relevancy whatsoever.

Indeed, for now, I don't think there's a problem in terms of UNCLOS with the F-18

And this is not the first time a CV (and its aircraft) operates in our EEZ

Anything done in EEZ shall be done in accordance with safety regulations, such as, if it is an unattended flight the transponder should be turned on, if it is a exercise military exercise, sea men, coastal state and other states should be notified.

NAVTEX - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a reason why NAVTEX exists, primarily for safety. However this flyover is not bound to permission of Indonesia, but should be carried by respecting safety regulations adopted by Indonesia, these two things are discrete.

Typical NAVTEX also indicates a ceiling, which means it has something to do with flights.

Article 58 is about the other states shall respect coastal state while practicing their rights in the EEZ
Article 87 is about the rights of other states in the EEZ.
And i think it is clear, if Indonesia has allowed this to happen, there is nothing wrong in there, if USN has not notified Indonesia and didn't comply with safety regulations then it is a violation.

The reason why a NAVTEX is issued to notify sea men and other states, for safety.

When it is about China and Chinese ships /aircrafts Indonesians react as if EEZ is part of territorial waters, treating like international waters when it is US, but why?
It is neither of the them,but it is an EEZ with specific rights.

So the only potential problem (if there's any) would only be limited to the safety aspect of the flight and not sovereignty issues, right?

React as if EEZ = territorial waters? In what specific case? We allowed Chines Warships to exercise their passage rights and we only 'mengusir' when it comes to illegal fishing activity

 

[Anmdt]

Indeed, for now, I don't think there's a problem in terms of UNCLOS with the F-18

And this is not the first time a CV (and its aircraft) operates in our EEZ



So the only potential problem (if there's any) would only be limited to the safety aspect of the flight and not sovereignty issues, right?

React as if EEZ = territorial waters? In what specific case? We allowed Chines Warships to exercise their passage rights and we only 'mengusir' when it comes to illegal fishing activity

I referred to Indonesians, like in twitter or in this forum not in terms of legal application.
And yes, if a notification was issued and safety measures taken, there is nothing wrong about that.

 

[Gundala]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1379442073460383750

Ahh this oil rig, I have heard some rumours about this oil rig
Perhaps that hornet doing low pass to have good visual and make sure it is a working offshore oil rig

 

[JATOSINT]

Ahh this oil rig, I have heard some rumours about this oil rig
Perhaps that hornet doing low pass to have good visual and make sure it is a working offshore oil rig

AF said it was flying above an FPSO not an oil rig

 

[JATOSINT]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1379982704993652737

 

[BBOn]

UNCLOS has no relevant whatsoever with this flyover.

I'm writing in my "educator mode". So, rather than giving a straight answer I implore you guys to scrutinize the legal aspect. And more important what I've stated that UNCLOS has no relevancy whatsoever.

 

[BBOn]

View attachment 17769

Military fly over is allowed.

 

[JATOSINT]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1380036311130640386

 

[trishna_amrta]

View attachment 17769

Military fly over is allowed.

As I had stated earlier UNCLOS isn't relevant nor does it even applicable whatsoever.

 

[BBOn]

As I had stated earlier UNCLOS isn't relevant nor does it even applicable whatsoever.

if UNCLOS is not relevant then we dont have reason to fight for our claim in Natuna EEZ. If we don't stick with UNCLOS then our claim to Natuna EEZ will be crushed by China's RELEVANT WATER claim.

 

[trishna_amrta]

if UNCLOS is not relevant then we dont have reason to fight for our claim in Natuna EEZ. If we don't stick with UNCLOS then our claim to Natuna EEZ will be crushed by China's RELEVANT WATER claim.

And what basis make UNCLOS even applicable or relevant in this mattered What was the topic again Are the topic about flyby or about foreign vesselWhich one

Hint : stop thinking in 2D and start thinking in 3D to understand the legal aspect.

Anyway, most of 1st year law student I knew also failed to see the elephant in the room of similar question..

 

[ardezzo]

if UNCLOS is not relevant then we dont have reason to fight for our claim in Natuna EEZ. If we don't stick with UNCLOS then our claim to Natuna EEZ will be crushed by China's RELEVANT WATER claim.

AFAIK:
UNCLOS meant to regulate economic related activities at the zone such as fisheries or natural resources and any survey related to either. but UNCLOS doesn't prevent any ship or plane from passing or flying over it, for airplane it was regulated by other law/agencies.

And what basis make UNCLOS even applicable or relevant in this mattered What was the topic again Are the topic about flyby or about foreign vesselWhich one

Hint : stop thinking in 2D and start thinking in 3D to understand the legal aspect.

Anyway, most of 1st year law student I knew also failed to see the elephant in the room of similar question..

many people had mistaken about EEZ and territory, but I had no idea if this bad

 

[trishna_amrta]

AFAIK:
UNCLOS meant to regulate economic related activities at the zone such as fisheries or natural resources and any survey related to either. but UNCLOS doesn't prevent any ship or plane from passing or flying over it, for airplane it was regulated by other law/agencies.

Very good You came near / very close although not yet struck the gold

many people had mistaken about EEZ and territory, but I had no idea if this bad

The typical question in law schools typically revolved around an underwater homicide case or onboard plane or ship. But the basic premise is always the same, its always implore the students to think in 3D (volumetric space) rather than in 2D. It's not easy to do for a typical 1st year law student. heck I failed, because I was thinking in 2D (flat space). And those from my class who can see the elephant in the room are now serving as judge, or any law related profession with face time in national TV headline news