일본의 배타적 경제수역에 북한어선혹은 간첩선이 표류
하면한국해군. 한국해경 동시 2척이출동, 구조해서 상호감시
무조건. 북한에. 어선과선원을 넘기도록 북한 지령받나?
근데 한국해군이 구조했다고 생각하는 배는 일본판단
으로는 북한의 간첩선이었다고 한다. ...
일본의 배타적 경제수역에 타군함이 들어갈 때. 사전통보
절차 있지않나? 중국군함이 한국의 EEZ(배타적경제수역)
에 사전통보없이 들어오면 어떻게하나? 우리해군의 대응
방법과 일본 자위대의 대응방법은 어떤 차이가 있나?
사전통보. 했는데.자위대비행기가 근접비행하며. 위협했나...?
한국어선이. 일본 경제전관수역에 조난되면. 해경. 해군이. 동시. 출동하나?
출동 여력이. 넘치나?
휴전선 은 비워놓고 서해도 비우고. 동해만 신경쓰는 거냐
그리고 국방부는 12월 22일엔 레이다 를 사용했다고 시인하다가, 24일엔 잡아 뗀건 또 무엇인가? 민감한 사안에 대해 이틀만에 말을 바꾸면 어떡하나? 알파손 도와주려?
북한간첩선이 표류하자, 일본에 가는것을 막고자, 남한에서 5000톤급 해경
경비함, 구축함급 광개토왕이 출동해 이를 구조한것 아닌가?
그리고 근접비행 위협이라 했는데 일본미쓰비시에서 만든 P1은 근접비행
하지 않아도 150KM밖에서미사일로 적함을 격침시킬수 있는 91式空対艦
誘導弾이 있어 마음만 먹으면 가까이 가지 않고도 얼마든지 적함을 위협할
수 있는 것이라 구태여 가까이 갈 필요도 없다. 이를 국방부가 위협비행이라
한다면, 중국군함이 한국 EEZ에 들어 오면 150KM밖에서 지켜보나? 아님
가까이 가서 근접비행을 하면서 상대방에 이곳은 한국의 EEZ이다, 뭔볼일
있어 근접비행 하냐? 고 시위비행을 하나?
무능해도 좋다,,, 그러나 이웃한 국가간에 자기나라 국민을 바보취급하는,
해군을, 국민을 속이는 국방부를 어떻게 경멸하겠나?
국방부에 촉구한다. 국민을 속이지 말아라, 문재앙이 속이라해도 거부해라
문재앙은 잠깐이지만 해군의 명예는 영원하다.
국내에서 곤경처하면(알파손 손혜원 목포나전칠기,김태우 민정실 조사관,
신재민 기재부 사무관폭로,러시아대사 1000만원 수뢰) 써먹는 수법인가?
어제 일어난 6.25참사는 잊어버리고 옛날 일본 이야기하면 김정은은 영웅되나?
왕따는 국제적이고, 한달이 멀다하고 외교참사 (교황청이 available햿다하면
이는 북한방문 약속이다, 알간? 가짜뉴스 아니여그렇게 알아야 착한 벽성이여,
아님 반동노무썌끼)는 일어나고, 목포의 눈물인지 알파걸인지 최순실의
부메랑이 기다린듯 돌아오네.
![](https://t1.daumcdn.net/cfile/cafe/9906063E5C47F7541B)
![](https://t1.daumcdn.net/cfile/cafe/993C603E5C47F75423)
![](https://t1.daumcdn.net/cfile/cafe/9968EC3E5C47F75521)
![](https://t1.daumcdn.net/cfile/cafe/99A5C53E5C47F7551F)
![](https://t1.daumcdn.net/cfile/cafe/9909C73E5C47F75526)
12月22日 - 防衛省は本事案について、慎重かつ詳細な分析を行い、当該照射が火器管制レーダーによるものと判断し、広範囲の捜索に適するものではなく、火器管制レーダーの照射は不測の事態を招きかねない危険な行為であり、仮に遭難船舶を捜索するためであっても、周囲に位置する船舶や航空機との関係において非常に危険な行為で、韓国も採択しているCUES(洋上で不慮の遭遇をした場合の行動基準)において、火器管制レーダーの照射は船舶又は航空機に遭遇した場合には控えるべき動作として挙げられていることをあげ、韓国側に再発防止を強く求めて行くことを発表した[8]。また、韓国海軍は「火器管制用レーダーを作動させたことは事実だが、日本の哨戒機を狙う意図は全くなかった」と話している[9]。
12月23日 - 河野太郎外務大臣は直接的な批判を抑制し「日韓関係を前向きに進めるためにも政府一丸となった対応を(韓国側に)お願いしたい」と述べた[10]。
12月24日 - 金杉憲治外務省アジア大洋州局長がソウルの大韓民国外交部を訪れ、強い遺憾の意を表するとともに、再発防止を強く求めたが[11]、韓国政府は今までの説明から一転して、「レーダー照射を行った事実はない」として、日本が事実と異なる発表を行ったと主張した[12]。22日時点では韓国軍は「火器管制レーダーを作動した」と自ら説明しており、説明に矛盾が発生している[9]。これに対し岩屋防衛大臣は「事実関係の一部に誤認がある」と記者会見で指摘し、防衛省名義の文書で「火器管制レーダー特有の電波を、一定時間継続して複数回照射された」と反論する声明を発表した[13][14][15]。
12月27日 - 第1回実務者協議を実施。韓国側のヘッドは合同参謀本部作戦部長の陸軍少将。韓国、照射を否定[6]。
12月28日 - 17時12分、防衛省はP-1が撮影した当時の映像を公表した[16]。
Military Activities in an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
In May 2016, following a “dangerous” intercept by two Chinese J-11 fighter jets that approached within 50 feet of an U.S. EP-3 Aries reconnaissance aircraft, China’s Foreign Ministry demanded that the U.S. immediately cease surveillance flights over international waters along China’s coast, saying they were “seriously endangering Chinese maritime security.”1 After a similar incident in June 2016, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. would consider any Chinese establishment of an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea to be a “provocative and destabilizing act.”2 This dispute is but one example of a coastal State unlawfully trying to limit military activities within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
The legal definition of the EEZ and a discussion of the relevant articles of the LOSC that delineate the rights, jurisdiction, and duties of coastal States are included in Chapter Two: Maritime Zones. This chapter outlines the relevant articles of the LOSC that delineate the rights and duties of other States within the EEZ of a coastal State. It then addresses the legality of military activities within an EEZ and differing interpretations of the law promoted by certain States. Finally, it highlights sensitive reconnaissance operations in the EEZs of other States conducted by U.S. Armed Forces with a focus on publicized incidents relevant to U.S. national security interests and foreign policy.
Rights and Duties of States Other Than the Coastal State Within an EEZ
Article 87 of the LOSC provides that the high seas are open to all States, including freedom of navigation and overflight, and that the freedoms of the high seas “shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area.” 3 Article 58 recognizes that all States enjoy within the EEZ “the freedoms referred to in Article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.” Article 86 of the Convention confirms this broad interpretation of Article 58. Hence, both the EEZ (including the contiguous zone) and the high seas beyond the EEZ are often referred to as “international water”or “high seas” for purposes of such navigation and overflight rights. Article 301 requires States to “refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations” and also applies to EEZs.
Legality of Military Activities in an EEZ
Most of the States that participated in the LOSC negotiations supported the view that military operations, exercises, and activities have always been regarded as internationally lawful uses of the sea and that the right to conduct such activities would continue for all States within the EEZs of other States.4
Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ)
However, international law does not prohibit coastal States from establishing ADIZs for security reasons in the international airspace within their EEZ. For example, an aircraft approaching national airspace may be required to identify itself while in international airspace as a condition of entry approval. ADIZs are justified in international law on the basis that a State has the right to impose reasonable conditions for entry into its national airspace. States that have standing ADIZs include Indonesia (over the island of Java), U.S., Japan, Canada, and France.5 U.S. ADIZs are set forth in 14 CFR 99.42, 99.43, 99.45, and 99.47 for the continental U.S, Alaska, Guam, and Hawaii respectively.6
https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-4/
MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
Today, military activities by foreign nations in the Exclusive Economic
Zones of other nations are becoming more and more frequent for a number
of reasons: the accelerating pace of globalization; the tremendous increase in
world trade; the rise in the size and quality of the navies of many nations;
and technological advances that allow navies to exploit oceanic areas.
Along with this increase in military activity has come increasing contention
over the scope of rights to military activities within the EEZ. A small number
of strategically placed countries interpret the Treaty to prohibit naval activities
and maneuvers in the EEZ without their prior permission. Those
countries include, for example, India, Malaysia, Brazil and Iran. 2 Others,
such as Thailand, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and
the United States, disagree. 3 Whether and to what extent high seas freedoms
of navigation and associated uses exist for warships and aircraft in the EEZ
has been the subject of a fair amount of discussion in academic literature.
Some have argued that it is difficult to conclusively determine just what the
Treaty means with respect to naval activities in the EEZ-that it is vague
and ambiguous. 4 According to one commentator, "The uncertainty [in the
Convention] is nowhere so striking as in the area of
military uses of the EEZ."'5
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a457969.pdf