|
China Seized An Unmanned U.S. Navy Sub – That Was Possibly Legal
China Just Seized an Unmanned US Navy Sub
China just seized an unmanned underwater vehicle operated by the US Navy, according to reports from Reuters. The seizure occurred in the South China Sea yesterday, and the US has since demanded that the vehicle be returned.
Reuters is reporting that the vehicle was seized just northwest of the Subic Bay, shortly before the USNS Bowditch was about to pick up the unmanned vehicle.
Aside from the details of this case which do not yet know (there is a tit-for-tat ongoing between the U.S. and Chinese Navy in the South-China-Sea) the legal issue involved here could get quite complicate.
Many militaries and commercial shipping companies are working on unmanned ships. But there is no case law and no international law yet that is applicable for unmanned shipping. The Laws of the Sea and the Law of Salvage all consider, to my best knowledge, only manned shipping.
This spring I discussed this problem over lunch with some people working in commercial cargo shipping here in Hamburg. The first plans for unmanned commercial cargo liners had just come up (see pic below). They had no ready answers to the open legal questions.
Rolls-Royce sketch for future unmanned cargo ship – bigger
The Chinese can simply say: "We saw a ship or submarine that seemed to be somewhat erratic in its movements. It did not respond to direct bridge to bridge bull horn calls. No crew was seen on board. We reasonably considered it a danger to international shipping. We salvaged it. If it is yours we will give it back (after a thorough inspection) if you pay us the usual applicable salvage award."
What can the U.S. in a legally straight way respond? How will it respond?
How would a British Navy Captain react if some unannounced unmanned ship came up through the English Channel? He would probably ask: "Is that ship possibly out of control or damaged? How would I know? Is it a danger to the dense general shipping here? Should I salvage it? Should I sink it?"
What would the legal answers be?
It took centuries until all nations agreed to some common Law of the Sea. I wonder how long it will take to make that applicable for unmanned shipping. With probably millions of dollars worth of cargo on such ships the problems could soon escalate.
Is it "pirating" or "salvaging" when someone enters up and takes control of such a ship? I don't know and reading the law hasn't helped.
The Chinese were possibly well within their rights when they took control of the unmanned U.S. Navy sub. But do not expect the U.S. Navy to support that legal position. Until of course the day it captures some unmanned Chinese ship.
OK, well . . . the latest is: the Chinamen are giving the drone back. That didn’t take long.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/17/politics/china-drone-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 16, 2016 11:24:17 PM | 20
“And since Uncle Sam never says Please, Thank You or Pardon Me, they’ll never see that drone again – except on CCTV.”
Your analysis is a bit sideways on this one, HW. No, the US did not say “please” and, yes, they are getting the drone back.
What actually happened was that the new president did his usual twitter-tirade over this outrage, the Chinamen pee’d their panties again, and, according to CNN, they are returning the drone. The Taiwanese are LAO.
The CNN article gives the additional detail that the Chinamen in the small boat actually pulled up alongside the Bowditch to snatch the drone. Sounds like something Greenpeace would do. So much for the salvage operation theory. My understanding is that the white-hulls are not armed, but, jeez, try to come alongside a grey-hull with a small boat and you’ll be picking .50 cal. rounds out of your butt all the way back to China.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter AU | Dec 17, 2016 1:03:41 AM | 24
You note the Reuters comment that the drone was collecting unclassified data. Unclassified data don’t seem to be consistent w/ “data for submarine warfare”. But even if so, what difference does it make? If the Bowditch was operating in international waters, they can collect any type of freaking data they want to. The issue here is not whether the US ship was operating legitimately. The question is whether the Chinamen stealing a drone while it is being recovered is legitimate.
“The US have been rattling the wardrums for some time and now they are crying foul?”
Au contraire. It’s those idiot Chinamen who are trying to take over the entire SCS with their fake islands and “extended economic zone” bullshit who have been “rattling the wardrums.” (Actually, I believe one rattles sabers and pounds war-drums.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
denk | Dec 17, 2016 2:21:52 AM | 25.
“No country would allow such act of war,. . .”
Dude, if you’re characterizing the Bowditch’s oceanographic surveys as “an act of war,” you either have very interesting information the rest of us don’t have or you’re totally loonytoones.
“what the fuck is your beef with those god damned ‘chinamen’ ?”
That is entirely disrespectful calling the Chinese “god damned ‘chinamen’.” You probably refer to the Irish as “god damned irishmen” and the English as “god damned englishmen”. Your racism is showing.
My “beef” is not with the god damned chinamen. It’s with the idiot Chinamen stealing other people’s property on the open ocean.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 17, 2016 6:22:43 AM | 28
“Denis @ 19: Please explain why it is necessary for the United States navy to project power in every ocean and every sea in the world, and to do that, to send oceanographic vessels out at considerable risks to the safety of their crews into areas where they could be shot at or captured by terrorists and held for ransom.”
I don’t believe this issue is one of projecting power. The Bowditch is a white-hull – it is not a warship. It was in international water carrying out research. The South China Sea is not China’s property. It is not their territorial water, although they are trying to make it that with their phony islands projects. They are the ones who are stepping across lines. I suspect part of the Bowditch’s mission is to assert a right of navigation in those waters. Sounds legit to me.
I don’t know who makes the decisions about what boat goes where and I can only speculate as to why – but as long as the USG projects its power in international waters, I’m all for it. If China wants to operate their ships in international waters off the coast of San Diego or Miami or Bangor – great. Let them. That’s why they are called “international waters.”
Did you raise concerns about the Russian navy projecting power in the Med or English Channel last month? The reasons navies have boats is so they can go places. “Join the Navy, see the world” is what they told us back in the ‘70’s.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
b | Dec 17, 2016 12:43:28 PM | 34
The Chinese are claiming that b/c rules about drones have not been clearly written that it is legitimate to steal one when you see it? Oh, now that makes just a whole lot of legal sense.
Because the rules controlling driverless cars have not yet been written, then than makes it legal to steal one if you see it. [Actually, that raises an interesting issue of what car-jackers are going to do with these things. I can see in my mind a funny Dumb and Dumber scene about that.] Or because there are no rules for driverless cars, that makes it legal for one to commit a hit-and-run?
The People’s Daily article suggests to me how stupid these people really are. Their air pollution is another serious indicator.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ghostship | Dec 17, 2016 2:08:17 PM | 36
“It seems to me that the American crew were sloppy in recovering the drone and paid the price. Next time they should be more careful.”
That may be, but I’m not sure I’d agree that there was a legitimate price for “being sloppy.” Being sloppy recovering a drone doesn’t automatically mean it becomes the property of whomever wants it.
As noted above, it’s looking like the Chinamen drew up alongside the Bowditch to snatch the drone. My guess is the Bowditch crew brought the thing to the surface a safe distance from the hull to avoid contact and then they visually directed it to within reach of the boom. Maybe they could have done a dive maneuver, but I doubt that anyone on the Bowditch was expecting these Chinese crazies to pull this stunt.
As G.W. famously said “Fool me once, shame on . . . shame on you. Fool me . . .you can’t get fooled again.”
Posted by: Denis | Dec 18 2016 1:21 utc | 38
|
