One of these claims is compatible with UNCLOS, the other absolutely is not. The US pulls plenty of international dickery, including not ratifying UNCLOS, but this claim fits within that existing international law just fine

[–] nekandro@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Except it's not really compatible with UNCLOS.

The US interpretation of UNCLOS would allow them to claim like half the Pacific

[–] Skua@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

What do you think isn't in line with it? This isn't an exclusive economic zone claim.

[–] nekandro@lemmy.ml -5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Part XI

[–] Skua@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

There are 58 articles in part XI. Which ones are you talking about?