China on Monday at 5am implemented, unannounced, its Joint Sword-2024B military exercises. At 6pm, it declared the exercises concluded. Beijing said the exercises were a legitimate and necessary action to defend its sovereignty and unity. However, the exercises’ proximity to Taiwan, and the presence of multiple military aircraft, warships and coast guard vessels attracted significant attention. Nations friendly to Taiwan expressed concern, fearing it would harm peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
From the perspective of international law, their legality is questionable. Article 87 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea says that the high seas are open to all states, whether coastal or land-locked. Ships and aircraft are free to navigate international waters. For warships, this includes the right to conduct fleet maneuvers, flight operations, military exercises and so on. However, military exercises must be properly announced “with due regard for the interests of other states” and should not harm the safe operation of other vessels.
Countries also have this freedom within exclusive economic zones, but are still subject to the restrictions. The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations says that all countries must declare a temporary warning zone in international waters and airspace to inform other countries of any activities being held in that area.
Countries must announce areas being used for missile testing, artillery drills and related activities through special navigational warnings, navigational bulletins or via the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. International law does not recognize any country’s right to restrict foreign warships or military aircraft from navigating or flying over areas outside of its territorial sea during peacetime. Although some coastal countries claim to have established so-called “safe zones” outside of their territorial waters to prohibit activity from other countries’ warships and aircraft, this system only exists in wartime.
The primary purposes of military exercises are training, preparedness and testing combat readiness or national response. Formulating pre-emptive emergency plans and examining their efficacy through drills ensures that national defense capabilities can effectively respond to events. They also promote peace and stability. The goal of military exercises should not be to intimidate other countries.
International law does not prohibit countries from conducting military exercises, even during peacetime. However, the exercises must be announced in advance, conducted over a reasonable period and cannot impede international navigation. China’s recent military exercises were not announced in advance and their location involved areas in the Taiwan Strait and waters near important Taiwanese ports, affecting navigation around major international ports and vessels passing through the Strait.
The exercises were designed to intimidate the government, constituting a blatant threat of force and possible infringement of international law. Although the exercises were smaller and shorter than those that followed then-US House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit in 2022, the response from other countries has merely been to express serious concern or to emphasize the importance of peace in the Taiwan Strait. China’s actions were clearly inconsistent with international practices, but no other nation condemned Beijing for ignoring international norms and laws.
Perhaps this was China’s true intention — to keep the offense minimal and lull other countries into overlooking the threat to international law.
The erosion of international norms regarding military exercises is concerning.
Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of law at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS