Talk:Freedom of navigation

message: I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems to have a bit of a pro-US military POV.  Maybe the views of other states should be included and cited as well...  ENpeeOHvee 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check

message: The title "Freedom of Navigation" covers much more than the US-policy position covered in the article. I think the article should be broadened to the history of the Freedom-of-Navigation concept in international (maritime) law, and the current content could then become a section in such a broader article. The article could then be merged with the "Freedom of the Seas" article which likewise could become a section in this article.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly-narrow focus 

message: What is the concern with the Want China Times as a reliable source? I think it's probably fine for statements about what the China Youth Daily said. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the China Youth Daily bit the material for the section that the sentence is filed under documents maritime events, not reactions and other forms of commentary for which there isn't enough of  that material (currently) to justify including the CYD standalone piece. Also it should be noted that the link for the source that it is cited to (Want China Times) is broken. I've also reorganized and renamed the sections for flow and coherency. Wingwraith (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Want China Times 

message: I'd like to see more precise definitions (or usage?) Of terms such as territorial waters, national waters, international waters, etc. Let's also distinguish between economic zones and the 12 nautical miles around sovereign territory. 
Which relates to the controversy over "artificially" building up a reef and claiming waters around it. Is this primarily an issue between China and America? Uncle Ed (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of terms 

message: I'm not sure that freedom of navigation (FON) is an international concept, so much as it is an American policy. I wouldn't want us (editors) to put the cart before the horse.
It looks to me like FON is largely an American idea: America expends the lion's share of the effort to maintain this "freedom", and to the extent that there is an international consensus favoring it, that just seems like good PR to me. America is going to conduct FON operations, like it or not.
* Upholding freedom of navigation as a principle supports unimpeded lawful commerce and the global mobility of U.S. forces.
* Excessive maritime claims are inconsistent with international law
* As long as restrictions on navigation and overflight rights and freedoms that exceed the authority provided under international law persist, the United States will continue to challenge such unlawful maritime claims. 
Maybe the lede could say that FON is an American policy which enjoys a degree of international support. But there are notable exceptions (Libya and China come to mind). Also, I'm not sure if bystanders actually support FON, or are just acquiescing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ed Poor It has been a policy in the Netherlands as long as the country has existed. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  American policy