Originally posted by chinawhite
.............

Yeah thats why you didn't respond

EDIT:

It happened in chinas EEZ. This states that the state is in control of 200 miles adjacent to their land border to develop oil and natural resources etc. But allows the innocent passage of international shiping as long as it does not breach the sovernity of the nation state.

How is any of that wrong?

Originally posted by rogue1
What does international shipping have to do with airspace, you can't find a single source of information ( because there isn't ) that a countries EEZ exerts rights over international airspace.

The EEZ regime, acknowledged by the international community in 1982 by UNCLOS, in many respects, was a product of a compromise between developing countries and industrialized countries. The EEZ regime itself has established some rights for coastal states protecting its off-shore natural resources. It reserves for the coastal nation jurisdiction over economic and environmental activities taking place up to 200 nautical miles offshore. The US, which has the strongest sea power in the world, agreed to some preferential status for coastal states in natural resources (the US set up its own EEZ in 1983) but strongly opposed any restrictions on traditional "freedom of navigation" or "freedom of overflight" in EEZ. (The US signed the UNCLOS but did not ratify it because of other reasons). The US regarded these freedoms as "high sea freedoms" (1983 Reagan Proclaim). Developing countries, on the other hand, tried to extend their jurisdiction in EEZ and to restrict these "freedoms." Brazil and some of the other 77-group states (a group composed primarily of economically-developing nations) claimed that any military exercises or maneuvers in EEZ should be subject to prior consent of the coastal states.

These controversies did not even end after the conclusion of UNCLOS. Article 58, paragraph 1 explicitly stipulates that all states can enjoy freedoms as referred to in Article 87 (High sea freedoms, including freedom of overflight). But developing states also got their points in paragraph three of the same article, which says that when exercising these freedoms, states have "due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal states." However, it is not very clear in UNCLOS that "security interests" (which are irrelevant to natural resources and environment protection) should be included in the rights of coastal states in their EEZ.

Hypocritically, the US, which opposed extension of coastal states' rights and jurisdictions in EEZ, by establishing Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) under its domestic law (US code 14 title 99), extended its jurisdiction on the air space beyond its territorial water. Chinese ambassadors, in an April 4 interview on CNN, argued that if a Chinese military aircraft did the same reconnaissance flight over US offshore, that the US would be opposed to such actions. So far, no one has refuted this argument. It is clear that coastal states can take self-defense countermeasures under national security considerations not withstanding UNCLOS provisions. The US should respect Chinese security considerations, as well as Chinese should respect American's near the US seashore.

Originally posted by the_sentinal

he said that if we see chinese military ......to welcome them!!!!