This study seeks to analyze the differences in the U.S. and China's policies towards freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. The South China Sea is one of the most important waterways in the world, linking the Middle East and Southeast Asia to the Pacific Ocean. It is of crucial interest to the United States for transit of energy and other resources as well as power projection via the American naval fleet. These waters are of interest to China as well, but for different reasons: the PRC claims an historic right to the area as a part of its territorial waters. The analysis uses declassified American Presidential correspondence and policy memoranda, U. S. Department of State publications, and the Congressional Record, among other first-degree sources, to discuss American policy; Chinese policy is explored through domestic law, official statements, government maps, and official news sources. After examining the relevant international law framework, history of the issues, and the work of other academics on the subject, this paper presents each side's individual policy towards freedom of navigation, the South China Sea, and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Finally, the two policies are contrasted and recommendations are made for how conflict might be minimized. / This study seeks to analyze the differences in the U.S. and China's policies towards freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. The South China Sea is one of the most important waterways in the world, linking the Middle East and Southeast Asia to the Pacific Ocean. It is of crucial interest to the United States for transit of energy and other resources as well as power projection via the American naval fleet. These waters are of interest to China as well, but for different reasons: the PRC claims an historic right to the area as a part of its territorial waters. The analysis uses declassified American Presidential correspondence and policy memoranda, U. S. Department of State publications, and the Congressional Record, among other first-degree sources, to discuss American policy; Chinese policy is explored through domestic law, official statements, government maps, and official news sources. After examining the relevant international law framework, history of the issues, and the work of other academics on the subject, this paper presents each side's individual policy towards freedom of navigation, the South China Sea, and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Finally, the two policies are contrasted and recommendations are made for how conflict might be minimized.

This thesis analyses the American policy of sustaining freedom of navigation on the seas through its Freedom of Navigation Program (FON Program). It analyses Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) as a means of maintain the current system of the law of the sea as put forth by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. (UNCLOS) The thesis deals with law of the sea history, it also describes and analyses the Convention itself. Another topic discussed is the unique position of United States as a power guaranteeing the current regime of the seas, while staying out of the provision of UNCLOS. The thesis analyses the American debate about joining the Convention and analyses the consequences of American absence as a party to the treaty. The FON Program and FONOPs in the South China Sea are thoroughly analysed by the thesis. The South China Sea is a troubled region suffering from excessive maritime claims of local states. These claims are closely connected to the militarization of the region. The People's Republic of China is an important force as a rising power striving for the position of a regional hegemon. The thesis describes, how FONOPs are conducted and it observes, how they are received by the target states. The thesis is set in the South China Sea region between October 2015 and May...

Studiens syfte var att analysera Israels roll innan och efter Sexdagarskriget med utgångspunkt inom rättfärdig krigsteori och dess kriterier. Det jag ville göra med studien var att analysera om Israel uppfyllde kraven för att initiera ett krig rättfärdigt, och sedan använde sig av rättfärdiga åtgärder vid efterkrigstiden. Studiens metodval var en kvalitativ innehållsanalys med en deduktiv ansats där material hämtades från olika arkiv och andra relevanta källor för att besvara syftet. Resultatet redovisades i en kronologisk ordning för att visa ett tydligt händelseförlopp mellan den 15 maj och 22 november 1967. Analysen visade på att Israel uppfyllde kriterierna för jus ad bellum genom ett tydligt casus belli vilket var stängningen av Tiran-sunden för israelitiska fartyg. Analysen om kriterierna för Israels jus post bellum uppfylldes däremot inte eftersom inga åtgärder som krävdes tas av Israels regering. Israel visade i stället på en motvilja att förhandla och till slut gjordes omöjlig med de arabiska tre nej. / This study aimed to assess Israel's role before and after the Six-Day War, utilizing the framework of just war theory and its associated criteria. The primary objective was to examine whether Israel adhered to the prerequisites for justly initiating a war and subsequently implemented just measures in the post-war period. The study employed a qualitative content analysis with a deductive approach, data were sourced from state archives and other pertinent materials. The results were organized chronologically, offering a coherent depiction of events unfolding between May 15 and November 22 1967. The analysis indicated that Israel satisfied the criteria for jus ad bellum by presenting a clear casus belli, namely the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. However, the examination of Israel's jus post bellum criteria revealed failure to take any just measures. The Israeli government did not undertake any of the required actions. Instead, Israel exhibited a reluctance to engage in negotiations as they did not want to engage first, a stance that ultimately led to the arabs’ three nos.

美國「南海」政策旨在為其「再平衡」戰略服務,並透過此一政策,能夠作 為深入亞洲地區的切入點。華府希冀南海爭端各方遵守國際規範、透過多邊機制 的談判與整合,來促使南海主權爭端議題和平解決,以及南海海域的航行自由等 均視為美國的國家利益。不過,美國實際舉措某種程度上而言仍存在著圍堵中共 之意味,尤其從「再平衡」政策推廣以來,無論是透過與亞洲地區傳統盟邦的軍 事同盟關係更新,拓展新型夥伴關係,不斷增強與東協國家互動密度,並在亞太 區域各處執行聯合軍事演習,種種作為都宣告著美國致力於亞太事務及其區域霸 權維護之決心。而美國「南海」政策挾其既有優勢以遏制中共的崛起與擴張,也 正逢此一適切時機,為美國爭取更大更多的戰略空間以及時間,來形塑美國所預 期的有利態勢與結果,包括符合美國利益的《南海行為準則》,更長遠的目標則 是透過這樣一個區域戰略創造出最佳的地緣戰略,奠定其未來放眼全球戰略上, 增加更多正面的選項,延長並維繫美國之超強霸權。 / The United States has enacted South China Sea policy. The main purpose of the policy is to support its rebalance strategy in the Asia Pacific. Moreover, it can be as the entry point which is driven deeper into the Asia Pacific. Washington intend to multi-national parties who involved in territorial sovereignty in South China Sea resolve the disputed issue peacefully by abiding international norms and multilateral mechanisms’ negotiation and integration. Also, the U.S. desires to maintain the freedom of navigation in South China Sea. From the viewpoint above, it seems like the solutions are beneficial to the multi-national parties, however, the U.S. would have more benefits on it. On the other hand, to certain extent, the intention of the U.S. is to contain the Mainland China. The progress of rebalance strategy mainly demonstrates (1) The U.S. is ramping up the relationship with allies in Southeast Asia, (2) They hold joint military drills in Asia Pacific frequently. From the rebalancing policy, it can be clearly seen that the United States determine to maintain and strengthen its power in the region. To sum up, the U.S.’ South China Sea policy may not only curb the Mainland China rising and expansion but also provide opportunities for the U.S. gaining greater strategic space. Whether the 12 July 2016 arbitral award will be incorporated into the South China Sea Code of Conduct is indeed a problem which in conflict with the national interest between the United States and Mainland China. Additionally, a long-term goal of the U.S. can be built such as creating a regional strategy based on geostrategic policy in order to ensure that they may extend and maintain their hegemony.

No description available.