Core Viewpoint - The report critiques the U.S. interpretation of "freedom of navigation," arguing it exceeds the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and undermines the balance between coastal states' rights and navigation freedoms [1][2][5] Group 1: U.S. Interpretation of Freedom of Navigation - The U.S. concept of "freedom of navigation" is described as an all-encompassing right that improperly applies to various maritime areas, disregarding the limitations set by UNCLOS [1][2] - The report highlights that the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS but selectively interprets international law to justify its actions, leading to ambiguities in international legal understanding [2][3] Group 2: Legal Status of Military Vessels - The report indicates that the U.S. claims military vessels can exercise innocent passage in foreign territorial waters, a stance lacking solid legal foundation under international law [2][3] - Data shows that among 158 countries, at least 29 require prior approval for foreign military vessels to enter their territorial waters, indicating a lack of consensus on the U.S. position [3] Group 3: Concept of "International Waters" - The term "international waters" is identified as a U.S.-created concept, not recognized in international law, which traditionally differentiates between territorial seas and high seas [4][5] - The U.S. conflates exclusive economic zones (EEZ) with high seas, advocating for unrestricted navigation, contrary to UNCLOS provisions that grant coastal states jurisdiction over their EEZs [4][5] Group 4: Double Standards in Maritime Claims - The U.S. applies double standards in recognizing the legal status of maritime features, being lenient towards its own and allies' claims while imposing strict standards on other nations [6][7] - Examples include the U.S. supporting its own claims over uninhabited islands while ignoring similar claims made by other countries, such as Australia and Japan [6][7] Group 5: Key Messages from the Report - The report categorizes U.S. claims of "freedom of navigation" into two main categories: excessive expansion of navigation interests and illegal restrictions on coastal state rights, providing a structured legal critique [7] - It emphasizes the need for a legal perspective in opposing U.S. interpretations, moving beyond mere political statements to a systematic legal analysis of the legitimacy of U.S. claims [7]

Core Viewpoint - The report evaluates the United States' "freedom of navigation" claims and practices in relation to international treaties and general international law, suggesting that these actions are hypocritical and lack a legal basis [1][5]. Group 1: Legal Assessment - The report examines the legal stance and practices of the U.S. regarding freedom of navigation, focusing on issues such as innocent passage of warships, rescue entry, transit passage, archipelagic sea lanes, "international waters," legal status of islands, straight baselines, territorial sea baselines of distant islands, military activities in exclusive economic zones, air defense identification zones, and historic waters [1][3]. - It highlights that the U.S. has created numerous self-defined concepts and standards of customary international law that contradict international law and the practices of many countries [3]. Group 2: Implications and Critique - The report argues that the U.S. "freedom of navigation" lacks a foundation in international law and distorts the interpretation and development of international law, perpetuating a logic of "gunboat diplomacy" [5]. - It suggests that this concept serves U.S. national interests and geopolitical strategies, potentially threatening regional peace and stability while disrupting international maritime order, reflecting a clear double standard [5].

Core Viewpoint - The report evaluates the legality of the U.S. "freedom of navigation" claims and practices in relation to international treaties and general international law, highlighting that these claims lack a legal basis and distort the interpretation and development of international law [1] Group 1: U.S. Claims and Practices - The report examines the U.S. legal stance and practices regarding freedom of navigation, focusing on issues such as innocent passage of warships, rescue entry, transit passage, archipelagic sea lanes, "international waters," legal status of islands, straight baselines, outer archipelagic baselines, military activities in exclusive economic zones, air defense identification zones, and historic waters [1] - It summarizes the characteristics and impacts of the U.S. "freedom of navigation" claims, which include numerous self-created concepts and standards that contradict international law and the practices of many countries [1] Group 2: Implications of U.S. Practices - The report argues that the U.S. "freedom of navigation" serves American national interests and geopolitical strategies, potentially threatening regional peace and stability while disrupting international maritime order [1] - It reflects a strong tendency towards illegality, irrationality, and double standards in U.S. practices, continuing the logic of "gunboat diplomacy" and using military force to pressure other nations [1]