mgimolawМосковский журнал международного праваMoscow Journal of International Law0869-00492619-0893Moscow State Institute of International Relations10.24833/0869-0049-2022-4-77-91mgimolaw-2716Research ArticleСтатьиБросая вызов свободе океана: программа США по свободе судоходства в индонезийских архипелажных водахChallenging the Freedom of the Ocean: The U.S. Freedom of Navigation Program in Indonesian Archipelagic Watershttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8825-5451ДармаванА. Р.DarmawanA. R.

Аристо Ризка Дармаван, программный директор Центра устойчивой океанской политики, Юридический факультет

Jl. Prof. Mr Djokosoetono, Pondok Cina, Kecamatan Beji, Kota Depok, Jawa Barat, 16424

Aristyo Rizka Darmawan, Ph.D., Program Director of the Center for Sustainable Ocean Policy (CSOP), Faculty of Law

Jl. Prof. Mr Djokosoetono, Pondok Cina, Kecamatan Beji, Kota Depok, Jawa Barat, 16424

aristyodarmawan@ui.ac.idУниверситет ИндонезииИндонезияUniversitas IndonesiaIndonesia20221201202304Специальный выпуск7791Copyright © Дармаван А.Р., 20232023Дармаван А.Р.Darmawan A.R.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.mjil.ru/jour/article/view/2716ВВЕДЕНИЕ

ВВЕДЕНИЕ. В 2017 г. Министерство обороны США опубликовало ежегодный отчет о свободе судоходства. Это первый отчет, выпущенный правительством США при администрации президента Трампа. В отчете географический ареал реализации Программы США по обеспечению свободы судоходства («FON») обозначен как «весь мир». В данном документе несколько раз указывается на чрезмерные морские притязания прибрежных государств. Помимо Южно-Китайского моря, главные опасения США в азиатском регионе вызывает Юго-Восточная Азия, ставшая одной из площадок для реализации американской программы FON, в частности Яванское море в части архипелажных вод Индонезии.

МАТЕРИАЛЫ И МЕТОДЫ

МАТЕРИАЛЫ И МЕТОДЫ. В данной статье рассматривается ежегодный отчет Министерства обороны США о свободе мореплавания за 2016 финансовый год, а также положения национального законодательства Индонезии. Кроме того, автор анализирует применимые нормы международного права, такие как соответствующие положения Конвенции по морскому праву 1982 г. В своем исследовании автор опирается на существующую доктрину по правовым вопросам, лежащим в основе темы статьи. Методологическую основу составляют общенаучные и специальные методы исследования, включая анализ, синтез, систематизацию, а также формально-юридический, формально-логический и критико-правовой методы.  

РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ. В настоящей статье утверждается, что положения программы FON США относительно Индонезии связаны не с архипелажным проходом по морским коридорам, а с противоречиями, проистекающими из национального законодательства Индонезии. В частности, речь идет о требованиях правительства Индонезии по предварительному уведомлению и запрете пролета воздушных судов над маршрутами, обычно используемыми для международного судоходства. Таким образом, в настоящей работе ставится задача оценить, в чем заключаются различия во взглядах Индонезии и США на регулирование судоходства в Яванском море и что может быть сделано для решения этих проблем.  

ОБСУЖДЕНИЕ И ВЫВОДЫ

ОБСУЖДЕНИЕ И ВЫВОДЫ. Корень разногласий между США и Индонезией лежит в различных интерпретациях статьи 53(1) Конвенции по морскому праву 1982 г., более конкретно, в том, создает ли эта статья обязательство для архипелажных государств устанавливать морские коридоры. По мнению автора, эти разногласия должны быть разрешены путем двусторонних переговоров, направленных на выработку общего толкования. Кроме того, осуществление свободы судоходства не должно ущемлять права прибрежного государства, включая его суверенитет.  

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION. In 2017, the US Department of Defense issued its Annual Freedom of Navigation Report. This is the first report released by the US government under the Trump administration. The report listed the geographic location of the US Freedom of Navigation (“FON”) Program all over the world. This document briefly describes an excessive maritime claims by coastal states’ activities in each case. Besides the South China Sea, the main US concern in Asia is Southeast Asia, which became one of the playing fields for the US FON Program, in particular the Java Sea in Indonesian archipelagic waters.  

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MATERIALS AND METHODS. This article examines the US DoD’s Annual Freedom of Navigation Report for Fiscal Year 2016 and the provisions of Indo­nesian national legislation. Further, the author analyses the applicable rules of international law, such as the relevant provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”). In this research, the author relies on the existing doctrine on the legal issues underlying the topic of the article. The methodological basis consists of general scientific and special research methods, including analysis, synthesis, and systematization, as well as formal-legal, formal-logical and critical-legal methods.

RESEARCH RESULTS

RESEARCH RESULTS. This article argues that the US FON Program in Indonesia is not about the partial submission of archipelagic sea lane passage but rather the controversy created by Indonesian national legislation. In particular, when Indonesia’s government requires prenotification and prohibits aircraft to come across the route normally used for international navigation. Therefore, this paper seeks to evaluate what are the different views between Indonesia and the US in terms of the regulatory framework in the Java Sea and what could be done in addressing these issues.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The root of the disagreement between the US and Indonesia is in diverging interpretations of Article 53(1) of the UNCLOS; more specifically, whether this Article creates an obligation for archipelagic States to establish archipelagic sea lanes passages. In the author’s opinion, this disagreement should be resolved through bilateral negotiations aimed at elaborating a common understanding. Furthermore, the exercise of freedom of navigation should not infringe upon the coastal State’s rights, including its sovereignty.

свобода судоходстваИндонезияСШАархипелажное государствоправо мирного проходаархипелажный проход по морским коридорамморское правоКонвенция по морскому праву 1982 гfreedom of navigationIndonesiaUnited Statesarchipelagic Stateinnocent passagearchipelagic sea lanes passagethe law of the seaUN Convention on the Law of the SeaReferencesAmer R. Towards a Declaration on “Navigational Rights” in the Sea-lanes of the Asia Pacific. – Contemporary Southeast Asia. 1998. Vol 20. No. 1. P. 88-102.Amer R. Towards a Declaration on “Navigational Rights” in the Sea-lanes of the Asia Pacific. – Contemporary Southeast Asia. 1998. Vol 20. No. 1. P. 88-102.Batongbacal J. L. Archipelagic Sea-lanes and Transit Passage through Straits: Shared Responsibilities Are Es­sential to Implementation. – The Strategic Importance of Seaborne Trade and Shipping. Ed. by A. Forbes. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. 2003. P. 99-112.Batongbacal J. L. Archipelagic Sea-lanes and Transit Passage through Straits: Shared Responsibilities Are Es­sential to Implementation. – The Strategic Importance of Seaborne Trade and Shipping. Ed. by A. Forbes. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. 2003. P. 99-112.Beesley A. The Negotiating Strategy of UNCLOS III: De­veloping and Developed Countries as Partners: A Pat­tern for Future Multilateral International Conferences?. – Law and Contemporary Problems. 1983. Vol. 46. No. 2. P. 183-194Beesley A. The Negotiating Strategy of UNCLOS III: De­veloping and Developed Countries as Partners: A Pat­tern for Future Multilateral International Conferences?. – Law and Contemporary Problems. 1983. Vol. 46. No. 2. P. 183-194Butcher J.G., Elson R.E. Sovereignty and the Sea: How Indonesia Became an Archipelagic State. Singapore: Na­tional University of Singapore Press. 2017. 560 p.Butcher J.G., Elson R.E. Sovereignty and the Sea: How Indonesia Became an Archipelagic State. Singapore: Na­tional University of Singapore Press. 2017. 560 p.Buzan B. Negotiating by consensus: developments in technique at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. – American Journal of International Law. 1981. Vol. 75. Issue 2. P. 324-348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2201255Buzan B. Negotiating by consensus: developments in technique at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. – American Journal of International Law. 1981. Vol. 75. Issue 2. P. 324-348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2201255Churchill R., Lowe V. The Law of the Sea. 3rd ed. Manches­ter, Manchester University Press. 1999. 500 p.Churchill R., Lowe V. The Law of the Sea. 3rd ed. Manches­ter, Manchester University Press. 1999. 500 p.Clingan T. A. Freedom of Navigation in a Post-UNCLOS III Environment. – Law and Contemporary Problems. 1983. Vol. 46. No. 2. P. 107-123Clingan T. A. Freedom of Navigation in a Post-UNCLOS III Environment. – Law and Contemporary Problems. 1983. Vol. 46. No. 2. P. 107-123Designation of sea lanes in the Philippines: issue focus. Ed. by Maribel B. Aguilos. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Law Center. 162 p.Designation of sea lanes in the Philippines: issue focus. Ed. by Maribel B. Aguilos. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Law Center. 162 p.Djalal H. Indonesia and the Law of the Sea. Jakarta: Cent­er for Strategic and International Studies. 1995. 449 p.Djalal H. Indonesia and the Law of the Sea. Jakarta: Cent­er for Strategic and International Studies. 1995. 449 p.Doeppers D. F. An Incident in the PRRI/Permesta Rebel­lion of 1958. – Indonesia. 1972. No.14. P.183-195.Doeppers D. F. An Incident in the PRRI/Permesta Rebel­lion of 1958. – Indonesia. 1972. No.14. P.183-195.Herman LL. The Modern Concept of the Off-lying Ar­chipelago in International Law. – Canadian Yearbook of International Law. 1986. Vol. 23. P. 172-200. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0069005800013291Herman LL. The Modern Concept of the Off-lying Ar­chipelago in International Law. – Canadian Yearbook of International Law. 1986. Vol. 23. P. 172-200. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0069005800013291Jayewardene H.W. The Regime of Islands in International Law. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. 1990. 570 p.Jayewardene H.W. The Regime of Islands in International Law. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. 1990. 570 p.Koh T B. Negotiating a New World Order for the Sea' (1983-1984). – Virginia Journal of International Law. 1983. Vol. 24. Issue 4. P. 761-784.Koh T B. Negotiating a New World Order for the Sea' (1983-1984). – Virginia Journal of International Law. 1983. Vol. 24. Issue 4. P. 761-784.Kraska J., Pedrozo R. International Maritime Security Law. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2013. 968 p.Kraska J., Pedrozo R. International Maritime Security Law. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2013. 968 p.Leifer M. International Straits of the World: Malacca, Sin­gapore and Indonesia. The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Nord­hoff. 1978. 217 p.Leifer M. International Straits of the World: Malacca, Sin­gapore and Indonesia. The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Nord­hoff. 1978. 217 p.Lieberman V. Maritime influences in Southeast Asia, c. 900–1300: Some further thoughts. – Journal of South­east Asian Studies. 2010. Vol. 41. Issue 3. P. 529-539.Lieberman V. Maritime influences in Southeast Asia, c. 900–1300: Some further thoughts. – Journal of South­east Asian Studies. 2010. Vol. 41. Issue 3. P. 529-539.Molenaar E.J. Coastal State Jurisdiction over Vessel-Source Pollution. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.1998. 654 p.Molenaar E.J. Coastal State Jurisdiction over Vessel-Source Pollution. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.1998. 654 p.Moore J.N. UNCLOS Key to Increasing Navigational Free­dom. – Texas Review of Law & Politics. 2008. Vol. 12. No. 2. P. 459-467.Moore J.N. UNCLOS Key to Increasing Navigational Free­dom. – Texas Review of Law & Politics. 2008. Vol. 12. No. 2. P. 459-467.O’Connell D.P. Mid-Ocean Archipelagos in International Law. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1971. Vol.45. P. 303-384.O’Connell D.P. Mid-Ocean Archipelagos in International Law. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1971. Vol.45. P. 303-384.Palma M.A. The Philippines as an Archipelagic and Mari­time Nation: Interests, Challenges and Perspective. Raja­ratnam School for International Studies Working Paper. 2009. 55 p. URL: https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/rsis-pubs/WP182.pdf (accessed 10.03.2022)Palma M.A. The Philippines as an Archipelagic and Mari­time Nation: Interests, Challenges and Perspective. Raja­ratnam School for International Studies Working Paper. 2009. 55 p. URL: https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/rsis-pubs/WP182.pdf (accessed 10.03.2022)Puspitawati Dh. The East/West Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage Through the Indonesian Archipelago. – Mari­time Studies. 2005. Issue 140. P.1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07266472.2005.10878766Puspitawati Dh. The East/West Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage Through the Indonesian Archipelago. – Mari­time Studies. 2005. Issue 140. P.1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07266472.2005.10878766Rothwell D., Stephens T. The International Law of the Sea. 2nd ed. Portland: Hart Publishing. 2015. 516 p.Rothwell D., Stephens T. The International Law of the Sea. 2nd ed. Portland: Hart Publishing. 2015. 516 p.Studies in Indonesian history. Ed. by El. McKay. Carlton, Vic.: Pitman Australia. 1976. 281 p.Studies in Indonesian history. Ed. by El. McKay. Carlton, Vic.: Pitman Australia. 1976. 281 p.Tanaka Y. The International Law of the Sea. 2nd ed. Cam­bridge, Cambridge University Press. 2015. 548 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139946261Tanaka Y. The International Law of the Sea. 2nd ed. Cam­bridge, Cambridge University Press. 2015. 548 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139946261Taylor J.G. Indonesia: peoples and histories. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. 2003. 448 p.Taylor J.G. Indonesia: peoples and histories. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. 2003. 448 p.The Law of the Sea: Problems from the East Asian Perspec­tive. Ed. by C-H Park and J.K. Park. Honolulu: Law of the Sea Institute. 1987. 619 p.The Law of the Sea: Problems from the East Asian Perspec­tive. Ed. by C-H Park and J.K. Park. Honolulu: Law of the Sea Institute. 1987. 619 p.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.