1) China has developed a maritime militia from its fishing fleets and deployed it to advance its interests in the South China Sea and East China Sea.
2) The actions of China's maritime militia are legally attributable to China as there is evidence they are directed and controlled by China's government.
3) China's use of its maritime militia raises concerns under international law as it could interfere with other nations' maritime freedoms and their use of force could escalate tensions or lead to war.
1) China has developed a maritime militia from its fishing fleets and deployed it to advance its interests in the South China Sea and East China Sea.
2) The actions of China's maritime militia are legally attributable to China as there is evidence they are directed and controlled by China's government.
3) China's use of its maritime militia raises concerns under international law as it could interfere with other nations' maritime freedoms and their use of force could escalate tensions or lead to war.
1) China has developed a maritime militia from its fishing fleets and deployed it to advance its interests in the South China Sea and East China Sea.
2) The actions of China's maritime militia are legally attributable to China as there is evidence they are directed and controlled by China's government.
3) China's use of its maritime militia raises concerns under international law as it could interfere with other nations' maritime freedoms and their use of force could escalate tensions or lead to war.
People’s Republic of China to perform force in self-defence and escalation could military service and join the militia in spiral. By Jonathan G. Odom accordance with law.” China’s Military Service Law specifies: “The armed forces of Consider this description in a PLA Daily article about China’s maritime militia: “Putting the People’s Republic of China shall be on camouflage, they qualify as soldiers; taking composed of the People’s Liberation Army off the camouflage, they become law-abiding For The Straits Times (PLA), the People’s Armed Police Force, and the militia.” fishermen.” Does this reflect a mindset to exploit international humanitarian law? The There is also strong evidence to conclude consequences of feigning civilian status would that China directs, controls, and instructs the be tragic for legitimate fishermen who could The world continues to have concerns about maritime militia. More specifically, political inadvertently become targets if war broke out. tensions in the South China Sea and East and military leaders exercise power over China Sea, especially the risk that an incident militia units; they task militia units to conduct CODE OF CONDUCT between two or more vessels at sea could operations; they fund, equip, and train militia Third, China’s use of its maritime militia can unintentionally spiral into war. While many units to conduct assigned missions; and they impact the interests of many nations. They vessels transiting these waters are warships, compensate, reward, and discipline individual include China’s neighbours that have coast guard cutters, and cargo ships, most are members of the militia units. In short, the competing territorial and maritime claims, but fishing boats whose crews are earning a living. public record of evidence demonstrates that they also include other Asia-Pacific nations Over the past decade, however, several the actions of China’s maritime militia can be whose navies pass through and operate in the questionable incidents have involved fishing attributed to China. waters of the Asia-Pacific. boats from one of those nations: China. These It can result in a number of serious include five Chinese vessels surrounding the MARITIME LAW consequences, including risks to life, risks of USNS Impeccable in 2009, a stand-off Second, China’s maritime militia raises significant property damage, and risks of between the Philippines and China at specific concerns under the Law of the Sea, the strategic harm to relations between China and Scarborough Shoal in 2012, a Vietnam-China international law governing the use of force, other nations. Worse still, China’s use of stand-off involving an oil rig in 2014, and the and international humanitarian law. fishing boats and personnel feigning civilian mass convergence in 2016 of 230 Chinese Past actions by the maritime militia have status could jeopardise the lives of innocent fishing boats around the disputed contributed to three recurring violations of civilians from any nation. Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Is this coincidental or China’s obligations under the Law of the Sea. For these reasons, interested nations is there a root source? First, militia vessels have interfered with the should address their concerns about China’s To answer this question, scholars have maritime freedoms of other nations, thereby maritime militia in multilateral fora and data-mined China-based informational breaching China’s obligation to maintain “due communicate them directly to China in official resources and uncovered that the actors regard” under the Law of the Sea Convention dialogues. In particular, any South China Sea involved are more than merely patriotic (UNCLOS). Second, militia vessels have Code of Conduct should apply to the fishermen. What has happened is that China navigated unsafely in relation to other vessels, behaviour of not only China’s navy and coast has developed a maritime militia from its violating the Collision Regulations guard, but also its maritime militia. They fishing fleets, and deployed it to advance its Convention. Third, China has failed to police should be ready to take actions to counter any interests. Greater attention needs to be paid to the fishing boats of its militia, breaching its hostile behaviour by the militia. this development given the stakes and their UNCLOS duty as a flag state. As a larger political debate continues in significance as seen through the lens of While these previous violations of the the Asia-Pacific about upholding the international law. peacetime international law are problematic, international rules-based order, the world the potential effects of China employing its should recognise that China’s use of its CHINESE GOVERNMENT’S ROLE maritime militia for belligerent purposes could maritime militia is a challenge to that order. In First, the actions of China’s maritime militia be more troubling. response, nations should say and do what is are legally “attributable” to China. Ordinarily, Aggressive use of the maritime militia necessary to counter that challenge effectively. a nation is not responsible for actions could lead to war. Under international law, committed by private individuals or groups. what constitutes a “use of force” is determined Jonathan G. Odom, a judge advocate in the But there are grounds in international law by the nature of actions, and not necessarily by US Navy and Military Professor of Law at the under which actions by private entities can be the status of actors. Firing a missile, laying Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies in attributed to a nation, several of which are met mines, enforcing a blockade, or conducting an Hawaii, recently published a legal analysis on by the maritime militia’s actions. amphibious landing of a disputed island could China’s maritime militia in the Asia-Pacific There is strong evidence to conclude that constitute a “use of force” -- whether it was Journal of Ocean Law and Policy. The views the maritime militia is an organ of China’s committed by the navy or a maritime militia. If expressed here are his own government. China’s Constitution states: “It is China’s maritime militia engaged in any such the honourable duty of the citizens of the actions, affected nations could justifiably use