Talk:Freedom of navigation

International relations: Law High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Red Sea crisis#Attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean (2023–present)| attacks on shipping in the Red Sea]] The anchor (Attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean (2023–present)) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

POV check

I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems to have a bit of a pro-US military POV. Maybe the views of other states should be included and cited as well... ENpeeOHvee 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revision:
From http://www.fas.org/man/docs/adr_00/apdx_i.htm

Combined with robust and highly visible routine operations by U.S. forces on, over, and under the world's oceans, and scrupulous adherence by the United States to the navigational provisions of the UN Law of the Sea Convention, Freedom of Navigation operations have continued to underscore the U.S. commitment to a stable legal regime for the world’s oceans.

You may disagree over whether the US is indeed following international law on this issue, but its position is that it is. Kelvinc 18:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with NPOV, mostly because freedom of navigation is an American value or goal. The US federal government feels that it is its unique responsibility to promote and safeguard world trade by keeping the sea lanes open. You know, leader of the free world, and all that.

If we need to revise the article so that Wikipedia isn't endorsing this viewpoint, we can quote figures from American history or politics which clarify that this is US policy (as opposed to a universally held ideal epitomized by the UN). --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overly-narrow focus

The title "Freedom of Navigation" covers much more than the US-policy position covered in the article. I think the article should be broadened to the history of the Freedom-of-Navigation concept in international (maritime) law, and the current content could then become a section in such a broader article. The article could then be merged with the "Freedom of the Seas" article which likewise could become a section in this article.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Want China Times

What is the concern with the Want China Times as a reliable source? I think it's probably fine for statements about what the China Youth Daily said. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the China Youth Daily bit the material for the section that the sentence is filed under documents maritime events, not reactions and other forms of commentary for which there isn't enough of that material (currently) to justify including the CYD standalone piece. Also it should be noted that the link for the source that it is cited to (Want China Times) is broken. I've also reorganized and renamed the sections for flow and coherency. Wingwraith (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of terms

I'd like to see more precise definitions (or usage?) Of terms such as territorial waters, national waters, international waters, etc. Let's also distinguish between economic zones and the 12 nautical miles around sovereign territory.

Which relates to the controversy over "artificially" building up a reef and claiming waters around it. Is this primarily an issue between China and America? Uncle Ed (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American policy

I'm not sure that freedom of navigation (FON) is an international concept, so much as it is an American policy. I wouldn't want us (editors) to put the cart before the horse.

It looks to me like FON is largely an American idea: America expends the lion's share of the effort to maintain this "freedom", and to the extent that there is an international consensus favoring it, that just seems like good PR to me. America is going to conduct FON operations, like it or not.

Upholding freedom of navigation as a principle supports unimpeded lawful commerce and the global mobility of U.S. forces.
Excessive maritime claims are inconsistent with international law
As long as restrictions on navigation and overflight rights and freedoms that exceed the authority provided under international law persist, the United States will continue to challenge such unlawful maritime claims. [1]

Maybe the lede could say that FON is an American policy which enjoys a degree of international support. But there are notable exceptions (Libya and China come to mind). Also, I'm not sure if bystanders actually support FON, or are just acquiescing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed Poor It has been a policy in the Netherlands as long as the country has existed. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]