自2015年10月以來，美國海軍已經在南海連續實施了三次“航行自由行動”（FONOPs）。美軍在沒有提前通知情況下進入中國島礁12海里內水域，這加劇了南海緊張局勢，並有損亞太地區的和平與穩定。美國海軍為何要實施這些行動？美國國防部宣稱：“美國海軍、空軍和海岸警衛隊實施'航行自由行動'……通過挑戰區域內部分沿海國家的過度海洋主張，來保護國際法賦予所有國家的權利、自由和對海洋和空域的合法利用。”不過，對這些行動的分析表明，這種說辭完全自相矛盾。

“航行自由行動”挑戰而非遵守《聯合國海洋法公約》

美國標榜自己是國際規則的遵循者和捍衛者，並且其行動符合《聯合國海洋法公約》（UNCLOS）。眾所周知，《聯合國海洋法公約》自1982年起對各國開放簽署，至1994年正式生效，迄今已有166個簽約國。這一公約允許成員國在簽署公約時附加正式聲明。由於擔心其在全球的航行自由受限，美國至今沒有簽署這一公約。而中國則在1982年簽約，並在1996年正式批准。在批准這一公約的同時，中國附加了五項聲明，包括中國享有對經濟專屬區(EEZ）和大陸架的主權和管轄權，對1992年《中華人民共和國領海及毗連區法》所列各島嶼享有主權。包括越南和馬來西亞在內的近30個國家也附加了類似聲明。中國和其他國家的這些聲明是《聯合國海洋法公約》的組成部分，具有法律效力，並應得到尊重。雖然不是簽約國，但美國也應當尊重並遵守《聯合國海洋法公約》。不過，美國的所作所為恰恰相反，通過實施“航行自由行動”來挑戰“過度海洋主張”，無異於挑戰《聯合國海洋法公約》。什麼是“過度海洋主張”？《聯合國海洋法公約》里並沒有這一術語。這一說法是由美國創造並定義的：“不合理劃定直線基線，不當限制軍艦在他國領海內實施無害通過的權利，以及不當限制在他國經濟專屬區內實施軍事活動的自由。”顯然，這一定義將他國合理的海洋主張視為“過度海洋主張”，並且有違《聯合國海洋法公約》。因此，美國挑戰所謂“過度海洋主張”的行動，實則是在挑戰《聯合國海洋法公約》。

“航行自由行動”是軍事行動而非無害通過

從2015年10月到2016年5月，美國海軍“拉森號”、“柯蒂斯·威爾伯號”和“威廉·P·勞倫斯號”導彈驅逐艦先後在南海中國領海實施“無害通過”行動。這些真的是“無害通過”嗎？《聯合國海洋法公約》第19條規定：“通過只要不損害沿海國的和平、良好秩序或安全，就是無害的……如果外國船舶在領海內進行下列任何一種活動，其通過即應視為損害沿海國的和平、良好秩序或安全：ａ）對沿海國的主權、領土完整或政治獨立進行任何武力威脅或使用武力，或以任何其他違反《聯合國憲章》所體現的國際法原則的方式進行武力威脅或使用武力……（ｃ）任何目的在於搜集情報使沿海國的防務或安全受損害的行為；（ｄ）任何目的在於影響沿海國防務或安全的宣傳行為……（ｆ）在船上發射、降落或接載任何軍事裝置……（ｋ）任何目的在於干擾沿海國任何通訊系統或任何其他設施或設備的行為……”根據定義，美國的行動不是“無害通過”而是軍事行動，因為：（1）“航行自由行動”是由美國國防部計劃、由美國海軍、空軍和海岸警衛隊實施的軍事行動；（2）“航行自由行動”是針對中國主權和領土完整的威脅或武力使用；（3）“航行自由行動”旨在搜集情報，損害了中國防務和安全；（4）“航行自由行動”的宣傳旨在影響中國防務或安全；（5）美國海軍導彈驅逐艦擁有全套軍事裝備；（6）“航行自由行動”旨在干擾中國在南海島嶼的通訊系統、設備和設施。因此，“航行自由行動”絕不是無害通過，而是為了展示美軍實力的軍事行動。

“航行自由行動”加劇緊張局勢而非促進和平穩定

美國聲稱，美國海軍在南海執行“航行自由行動”是為了保障航行自由並促進和平與穩定。事實上，航行自由從來都不是問題，在美國“重返”亞洲之前，這片海域一直保持和平與穩定。與美國的說法正好相反，“航行自由行動”加劇了緊張局勢，並造成不穩定。首先，這些行動進入中國領海12海里以內，因此解放軍不得不派出戰鬥機和軍艦捍衛領海主權，這加劇了緊張氣氛，並可能導致意外事件發生。其次，這些行動鼓勵了菲律賓鞏固其非法佔據的島礁（菲律賓違反《南海各方行為宣言》和《聯合國海洋法公約》，單方面將南海問題提交國際仲裁），這導致中菲之間的海洋領土糾紛變得更為複雜，也更難解決。再次，美國媒體大肆炒作在中國領海的“航行自由行動”，在國際社會眾目睽睽之下羞辱中國，這導致中國國內民族主義升溫，並迫使中國政府不得不作出回應。

除了導彈驅逐艦之外，美國還派出RC-135偵察機、P-8反潛機和B-52轟炸機在南海執行任務，這進一步加劇了緊張局勢。自視為世界領袖的美國，應簽署並全面徹底地遵守《聯合國海洋法公約》，而非出於自身目的斷章取義地引述隻言片語。

Since October 2015, the US Navy has successively conducted three Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea. These operations transited inside of 12 nautical miles of China's islands and reefs in the SCS without prior notification, which has intensified the situation in the SCS and undermined the peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific Region. Why does the US Navy conduct these operations? The US Department of Defense declares that “the US Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard conduct FONOPs … to protect the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations in international law by challenging the full range of excessive maritime claims asserted by some coastal States in the region.” However, an analysis of the operations has only found that they represent a sheer paradox.

FONOP challenges UNCLOS other than abiding by it

The US flaunts itself as follower and defender of international norms and operates consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As we know, UNCLOS opened to signature in 1982, began to be in force in 1994 and now has 166 member States. The convention allows a member State to include formal declarations and statements when ratifying it. Until now the US has not signed UNCLOS yet in fear that it would restrict its freedom of navigation in the world. China signed UNCLOS in 1982 and ratified it in 1996. When ratifying it, China listed five declarations, including China's sovereign rights and jurisdiction over its EEZ and the continental shelf, and its sovereignty over all the islands it had claimed in its 1992 Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Nearly 30 countries including Vietnam and Malaysia have made similar statements. All these declarations made by China and other countries constitute an integral part of UNCLOS and should be effective and respected. Though not a signee, the US should also respect and  abide by UNCLOS. However, instead of respecting and abiding by UNCLOS, the US challenges it by conducting “Freedom of Navigation operations to challenge so-called “excessive maritime claims”. What are “excessive maritime claims”? There is no such a term in UNCLOS. It is a term created and defined by the US as “improperly drawn straight baselines, improper restrictions on the right of warships to conduct innocent passage through the territorial seas of other States, and the freedom to conduct military activities within the EEZs of other States”. Obviously this term regards other countries' reasonable maritime claims as “excessive maritime claims” and is inconsistent with UNCLOS. Therefore the US operations to challenge the so-called “excessive maritime claims” are actually to challenge UNCLOS.

FONOP is military operations other than innocent passage

From October 2015 to May 2016, guided-missile destroyers USS Lassen, USS Curtis Wilbur and USS William P. Lawrence, successively conducted operations in the South China Sea to exercise “innocent passage” through China's territorial sea. Are these really “innocent passage”? Article 19 of UNCLOS stipulates “Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State …Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities: (a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations…(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State; (d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State… (f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device… (k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State…” According to this definition, the US operations are not “innocent passage” but military operations because: (1) FONOP is military operations planned by the US Department of Defense and executed by the US Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard; (2) FONOP is threat or use of force against China's sovereignty and territorial integrity; (3) FONOP aims at collecting information to the prejudice of China's defense and security; (4) the FONOP propaganda aims at affecting China's defense and security; (5) the US Navy guided-missile destroyers take all kinds of military devices on board; (6) FONOP aims at interfering with China's communication systems, facilities and installations on the islands in the SCS. Thus a FONOP is by no means innocent passage but military operations to show the US muscles.

FONOP intensifies situation other than furthering peace and stability

The US asserts that the US Navy conducts FONOPs in the South China Sea to ensure freedom of navigation and further peace and stability. In fact there has never been a problem of freedom of navigation and the sea had remained peaceful and stable before the US “rebalance” to Asia. Just opposite to what the US asserts, FONOPs intensify the situation and cause instability. First, the operations transited inside of the 12 nautical miles of China's territorial water and the PLA had to send fighter jets or worships to defend China's maritime territory, which intensifies the atmosphere and might give rise to unexpected incidents. Second, the operations have encouraged the Philippines to consolidate the illegally occupied islands and reefs by violating the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and UNCLOS to unilaterally initiate the arbitration of the South China Sea, which complicates China's maritime territorial dispute with the Philippines and makes it even more difficult to solve. Third, the sensationalization of “freedom of navigation” operations into China's territorial water by the US media has drawn world's attention to the South China Sea and disgraced China, which instigates Chinese nationalism and forces the Chinese Government to respond accordingly.

In addition to the guided-missile destroyers, the US also sent RC-135 reconnaissance planes, P-8 anti-submarine warfare planes and B-52 bombers to conduct operations in the South China Sea, which further intensified the situation. As a self-labeled world leader, the US should sign and abide by UNVCLOS wholly and thoroughly instead of citing a few isolated words and phrases to serve its purpose.