自2015年10月以来，美国海军已经在南海连续实施了三次“航行自由行动”（FONOPs）。美军在没有提前通知情况下进入中国岛礁12海里内水域，这加剧了南海紧张局势，并有损亚太地区的和平与稳定。美国海军为何要实施这些行动？美国国防部宣称：“美国海军、空军和海岸警卫队实施'航行自由行动'……通过挑战区域内部分沿海国家的过度海洋主张，来保护国际法赋予所有国家的权利、自由和对海洋和空域的合法利用。”不过，对这些行动的分析表明，这种说辞完全自相矛盾。

“航行自由行动”挑战而非遵守《联合国海洋法公约》

美国标榜自己是国际规则的遵循者和捍卫者，并且其行动符合《联合国海洋法公约》（UNCLOS）。众所周知，《联合国海洋法公约》自1982年起对各国开放签署，至1994年正式生效，迄今已有166个签约国。这一公约允许成员国在签署公约时附加正式声明。由于担心其在全球的航行自由受限，美国至今没有签署这一公约。而中国则在1982年签约，并在1996年正式批准。在批准这一公约的同时，中国附加了五项声明，包括中国享有对经济专属区(EEZ）和大陆架的主权和管辖权，对1992年《中华人民共和国领海及毗连区法》所列各岛屿享有主权。包括越南和马来西亚在内的近30个国家也附加了类似声明。中国和其他国家的这些声明是《联合国海洋法公约》的组成部分，具有法律效力，并应得到尊重。虽然不是签约国，但美国也应当尊重并遵守《联合国海洋法公约》。不过，美国的所作所为恰恰相反，通过实施“航行自由行动”来挑战“过度海洋主张”，无异于挑战《联合国海洋法公约》。什么是“过度海洋主张”？《联合国海洋法公约》里并没有这一术语。这一说法是由美国创造并定义的：“不合理划定直线基线，不当限制军舰在他国领海内实施无害通过的权利，以及不当限制在他国经济专属区内实施军事活动的自由。”显然，这一定义将他国合理的海洋主张视为“过度海洋主张”，并且有违《联合国海洋法公约》。因此，美国挑战所谓“过度海洋主张”的行动，实则是在挑战《联合国海洋法公约》。

“航行自由行动”是军事行动而非无害通过

从2015年10月到2016年5月，美国海军“拉森号”、“柯蒂斯·威尔伯号”和“威廉·P·劳伦斯号”导弹驱逐舰先后在南海中国领海实施“无害通过”行动。这些真的是“无害通过”吗？《联合国海洋法公约》第19条规定：“通过只要不损害沿海国的和平、良好秩序或安全，就是无害的……如果外国船舶在领海内进行下列任何一种活动，其通过即应视为损害沿海国的和平、良好秩序或安全：ａ）对沿海国的主权、领土完整或政治独立进行任何武力威胁或使用武力，或以任何其他违反《联合国宪章》所体现的国际法原则的方式进行武力威胁或使用武力……（ｃ）任何目的在于搜集情报使沿海国的防务或安全受损害的行为；（ｄ）任何目的在于影响沿海国防务或安全的宣传行为……（ｆ）在船上发射、降落或接载任何军事装置……（ｋ）任何目的在于干扰沿海国任何通讯系统或任何其他设施或设备的行为……”根据定义，美国的行动不是“无害通过”而是军事行动，因为：（1）“航行自由行动”是由美国国防部计划、由美国海军、空军和海岸警卫队实施的军事行动；（2）“航行自由行动”是针对中国主权和领土完整的威胁或武力使用；（3）“航行自由行动”旨在搜集情报，损害了中国防务和安全；（4）“航行自由行动”的宣传旨在影响中国防务或安全；（5）美国海军导弹驱逐舰拥有全套军事装备；（6）“航行自由行动”旨在干扰中国在南海岛屿的通讯系统、设备和设施。因此，“航行自由行动”绝不是无害通过，而是为了展示美军实力的军事行动。

“航行自由行动”加剧紧张局势而非促进和平稳定

美国声称，美国海军在南海执行“航行自由行动”是为了保障航行自由并促进和平与稳定。事实上，航行自由从来都不是问题，在美国“重返”亚洲之前，这片海域一直保持和平与稳定。与美国的说法正好相反，“航行自由行动”加剧了紧张局势，并造成不稳定。首先，这些行动进入中国领海12海里以内，因此解放军不得不派出战斗机和军舰捍卫领海主权，这加剧了紧张气氛，并可能导致意外事件发生。其次，这些行动鼓励了菲律宾巩固其非法占据的岛礁（菲律宾违反《南海各方行为宣言》和《联合国海洋法公约》，单方面将南海问题提交国际仲裁），这导致中菲之间的海洋领土纠纷变得更为复杂，也更难解决。再次，美国媒体大肆炒作在中国领海的“航行自由行动”，在国际社会众目睽睽之下羞辱中国，这导致中国国内民族主义升温，并迫使中国政府不得不作出回应。

除了导弹驱逐舰之外，美国还派出RC-135侦察机、P-8反潜机和B-52轰炸机在南海执行任务，这进一步加剧了紧张局势。自视为世界领袖的美国，应签署并全面彻底地遵守《联合国海洋法公约》，而非出于自身目的断章取义地引述只言片语。

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.