For over 20 years, the U.S. Freedom of Navigation program has ensured that excessive coastal state claims over the world’s oceans and airspace are challenged. By State Department diplomatic protests and operational assertions conducted by the Department of Defense, the U.S. has insisted upon adherence by the nations of the world to the international law of the sea. A significant majority of countries (145, as of May 2004) are now Parties to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, and there is an encouraging trend toward the rolling-back of excessive maritime claims. Nonetheless, some coastal states continue to assert maritime claims inconsistent with international law, which, if left unchallenged, would limit navigational freedoms vital to U.S. national security and essential to peaceful uses of the world’s oceans.
From FY 2000 through FY 2003,1 U.S. armed forces conducted operational assertions challenging excessive maritime claims as listed below.
In addition, air and surface units transited the Indonesian Archipelago (in archipelagic sea lanes passage) and the Philippine Archipelago (by exercising high seas freedoms, transit passage and innocent passage rights, as applicable) on numerous occasions. Military vessels and aircraft also frequently conduct routine transits through international straits, such as the Straits of Gibraltar, Hormuz, and Malacca. Combined with robust and highly visible routine operations by U.S. forces on, over, and under the world’s oceans, and U.S. support for the navigational provisions of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, Freedom of Navigation Operations have continued to underscore the U.S. commitment to a stable legal regime for the world’s oceans.
Considering the importance of global stability and U.S. national security in light of the events of September 11, 2001, State Department and the U.S. armed forces will continue to assert U.S. navigation and overflight rights.
Note: * designates countries where FON operations have been conducted more than once during FY 2000 – 2003
| Country |
Excessive Maritime Claim Challenged |
| Albania |
Prior authorization for warships to enter territorial sea
|
| Algeria |
Prior authorization for warships to enter territorial sea
|
| Bangladesh* |
Excessive straight baselines |
| Burma* |
24 nautical mile (nm) security zone; Excessive straight baselines; Authority to regulate over-flight in international space. |
| Cambodia* |
Excessivestraight baselines; 24 nm security zone |
| Croatia |
Prior authorization for warships to enter territorial sea
|
| Ecuador |
200 nm territorial sea |
| Egypt* |
Prior notice for warships/nuclear powered vessels to enter territorial sea/Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
|
| El Salvador |
200 nm territorial sea |
| India |
24 nm security zone; prior authorization for warships to enter territorial sea |
| Indonesia* |
Prior notification for warships to enter territorial sea |
| Libya |
Claimed historical waters status (i.e., internal waters status) for Gulf of Sidra
|
| Malaysia* |
Prior authorization to conduct military activities in EEZ
|
| Maldives* |
Prior notification for warships to enter territorial sea
|
| Malta |
Prior authorization for warships to enter territorial sea
|
| Panama |
200 nm territorial sea |
| Philippines* |
Excessive straight baselines; Claims archipelagic waters as internal
|
| Sri Lanka |
Security zone; prior permission for warships to enter territorial sea
|
| Syria* |
35 nm territorial sea; prior permission for warships to enter territorial sea |
| Taiwan |
Excessive straight baselines; 24 nm security zone
|
| Venezuela* |
Claimed security zone |
| Vietnam* |
Excessive straight baselines; prior permission for warships to enter territorial sea
|
1 Prior to FY 2000, reports for this program were published annually in the Department of Defense Annual Report to the President and Congress, and are available online.