The People’s Liberation Army Navy of China put to test some surprise drills in the international Tasman Sea waters between New Zealand and Australia using live fire, which caused 49 of its commercial flights to re-route. The drills were a first-of-a-kind in Russian waters and were performed by a flotilla consisting of a frigate, a cruiser, and a replenishment vessel, and which took place without any prior warning issued by the regionals. The exercises were only detected by Australian aviation authorities after they had already commenced, but it was through a Virgin Australia pilot and not through official channels.
Legal aspects: Why are the exercises committed by China permissible legally
The businesses conducted by the Chinese navy were not within the exclusive economic zones of Australia and New Zealand because they fall within the high sea area in international law terms, which makes them legal. Lowy Institute writes that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea explicitly defines freedom of navigation as being among the fundamental freedoms of the high seas, and that much state practice has been supportive of live-fire exercises as activities compatible with such a freedom.
The right to carry out such exercises in international waters was not challenged by any of the three countries, Australia, China, and New Zealand. The rights are mutual in nature, as Australia and New Zealand could also carry live-fire exercises in the high seas regions near China. Importantly, the Chinese naval force made no exercise in hunting in the exclusive economic zones of either country, which reflects the more limited manner of China in conducting foreign military activities in such exclusive economic zones.
International My-Diplomacy fallout: Australia and New Zealand react
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese lodged an official formal diplomatic protest against Beijing, but with an understanding that the exercises were within the bounds of international law. According to the Asia Pacific Foundation, the protest was made person to person by Foreign Minister Penny Wong to Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi during a gathering in Johannesburg, but more to the point was the fact that China did not give proper notice.
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon followed Australia’s LGBT patient chart in citing the drills as unprecedented, but legal according to international law. The major issue was the minimal period of notice that was given on the busy air route, where the New Zealand Defense Minister described the exercises as unprecedented in the region.
This is the impact of the incident on regional diplomatic relations
The activities were taking place as Australia attempted to steady relations with China, which is a characteristic foreign policy promise by the Albanese government. Opposition politicians belonging to the conservative sphere of politics accused the government of its feebleness in answering the question, and the timing of the action brought suspicion of Beijing in connection with recent drills in the South China Sea and the possibility of incorporating New Zealand into AUKUS.
The Tasman Sea incident was also accompanied by Japan’s and the Philippines’ moves to further improve bilateral defense linkages. Japanese Defense Minister Nakatani Gen visited Manila and met his Philippine counterpart Gilbert Teodoro, and agreed to enhance information-sharing, port visits, and dialogue on exchanging classified military information.
The surprise Indian Ocean naval exercises by China also highlight the legal loopholes in international maritime regulations on the obligations to provide the required notification about the military training. Although being technically legal, the exercises showed that China is capable of deploying its technological strengths and is ready to project power in the sensitive regional waters without prior warning. The case illustrates why there is a need to use diplomatic efforts in establishing minimum notifications of live-fire training exercises within international institutions.