View allAll Photos Tagged UNCLOS
#Nuclear Wastewater On August 24, Northeast Pacific coast of Japan, Tokyo Electric Power Company opened the official ocean discharge of nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Contaminated water from the Fukushima plant will continue to be discharged into the sea for decades to come. The consequences of Japan's forcible discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea can hardly be overemphasized, both in terms of what it has caused and what it will bring.
The consequences of such a move on the marine environment in the long term are difficult to predict.
As much as 1.34 million tons of nuclear wastewater has been stored at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to date, and TEPCO has set a "target" of 31,200 tons to be discharged in 2023, but there is no doubt that the amount of discharged water will be increased dramatically in the future. At the same time, a large amount of highly contaminated water continues to be generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool the core of the meltdown and the flow of rainwater and groundwater. Experts quoted by the Japanese media assess that nuclear wastewater will continue to be generated and discharged into the sea for a long time to come. Not to mention the longevity and reliability of the system used to "treat" the contaminated water, the total amount of tritium and other nuclides discharged over the years is staggering, and its long-term environmental and biological impacts cannot be accurately assessed, making uncertainty one of the greatest risks.
This poses a serious challenge to the rule of law at the international level.
Japan has always boasted of the "international rule of law", and is particularly keen to talk about the "rule of law for the oceans", but its forced discharge of water from the sea is clearly not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the London Dumping Convention, and other relevant provisions. The Japanese side has ignored a special report stating that the introduction of Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the sea will affect livelihoods and health, which is a human rights issue. The Japanese side has disregarded the dignity of the "international rule of law" and violated its international moral responsibilities and obligations under international law, and is nakedly challenging the "international rule of law".
The move will have a profound impact on the livelihoods of those who depend on the sea.
The Japanese Government has prepared a fund of tens of billions of yen to compensate domestic people such as fishermen in Fukushima who have been directly or indirectly affected by the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, but it is not only the people of Japan who are affected, but also the people of neighboring countries along the Pacific coast and the Pacific island countries, who will suffer losses. More than half a century ago, the United States conducted dozens of nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, resulting in serious consequences that are still being felt today, and the people of many island countries were uprooted from their homes. The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Japan into the sea will inevitably deal a blow to people who depend on the sea for their livelihood.
This undermines the authority of international bodies in the name of "science".
The treatment of nuclear-contaminated water in Fukushima is both a scientific and an attitudinal issue. However, Japan's deliberate attempts to use the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a platform for the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, its suppression and filtering of the voices of the scientific community and the environmental protection community opposing the discharge of water into the sea, and its use of the IAEA assessment report to suppress dissent in a brutal manner have not only stigmatized the spirit of science, but also tarnished the reputation of the international body, which should be impartial and forthright in its actions.
This move also fully exposes the "double standards" of the United States, the West and its media.
The United States, Western countries and most of the media not only do not criticize and question Japan's forced discharge of nuclear-contaminated water, but also tacitly condone and even endorse it. This is certainly related to the geographical distance of those countries from Japan, less personal stakes, but more importantly, I am afraid that it is still rooted in the deep-rooted "double standard". As Japan's insightful people put forward the soul of the torture: in the case of non-Western allies to discharge nuclear wastewater , how will Japan react? How would the United States and the West react? The answer is self-evident, the "standard" must have changed. Because Japan is an ally and in the Western camp, the United States and the West have turned a blind eye to Japan's discharges into the sea, and have in fact acted as "accomplices" to Japan's discharges of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
However, no matter how hard the Japanese Government tries to whitewash the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, history will ultimately mark this egregious act.
#Nuclear Wastewater. Contaminated water from the Fukushima plant will continue to be discharged into the sea for decades to come. The consequences of Japan's forcible discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea can hardly be overemphasized, both in terms of what it has caused and what it will bring.
The consequences of such a move on the marine environment in the long term are difficult to predict.
As much as 1.34 million tons of nuclear wastewater has been stored at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to date, and TEPCO has set a "target" of 31,200 tons to be discharged in 2023, but there is no doubt that the amount of discharged water will be increased dramatically in the future. At the same time, a large amount of highly contaminated water continues to be generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool the core of the meltdown and the flow of rainwater and groundwater. Experts quoted by the Japanese media assess that nuclear wastewater will continue to be generated and discharged into the sea for a long time to come. Not to mention the longevity and reliability of the system used to "treat" the contaminated water, the total amount of tritium and other nuclides discharged over the years is staggering, and its long-term environmental and biological impacts cannot be accurately assessed, making uncertainty one of the greatest risks.
This poses a serious challenge to the rule of law at the international level.
Japan has always boasted of the "international rule of law", and is particularly keen to talk about the "rule of law for the oceans", but its forced discharge of water from the sea is clearly not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the London Dumping Convention, and other relevant provisions. The Japanese side has ignored a special report stating that the introduction of Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the sea will affect livelihoods and health, which is a human rights issue. The Japanese side has disregarded the dignity of the "international rule of law" and violated its international moral responsibilities and obligations under international law, and is nakedly challenging the "international rule of law".
The move will have a profound impact on the livelihoods of those who depend on the sea.
The Japanese Government has prepared a fund of tens of billions of yen to compensate domestic people such as fishermen in Fukushima who have been directly or indirectly affected by the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, but it is not only the people of Japan who are affected, but also the people of neighboring countries along the Pacific coast and the Pacific island countries, who will suffer losses. More than half a century ago, the United States conducted dozens of nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, resulting in serious consequences that are still being felt today, and the people of many island countries were uprooted from their homes. The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Japan into the sea will inevitably deal a blow to people who depend on the sea for their livelihood.
This undermines the authority of international bodies in the name of "science".
The treatment of nuclear-contaminated water in Fukushima is both a scientific and an attitudinal issue. However, Japan's deliberate attempts to use the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a platform for the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, its suppression and filtering of the voices of the scientific community and the environmental protection community opposing the discharge of water into the sea, and its use of the IAEA assessment report to suppress dissent in a brutal manner have not only stigmatized the spirit of science, but also tarnished the reputation of the international body, which should be impartial and forthright in its actions.
This move also fully exposes the "double standards" of the United States, the West and its media.
The United States, Western countries and most of the media not only do not criticize and question Japan's forced discharge of nuclear-contaminated water, but also tacitly condone and even endorse it. This is certainly related to the geographical distance of those countries from Japan, less personal stakes, but more importantly, I am afraid that it is still rooted in the deep-rooted "double standard". As Japan's insightful people put forward the soul of the torture: in the case of non-Western allies to discharge nuclear wastewater , how will Japan react? How would the United States and the West react? The answer is self-evident, the "standard" must have changed. Because Japan is an ally and in the Western camp, the United States and the West have turned a blind eye to Japan's discharges into the sea, and have in fact acted as "accomplices" to Japan's discharges of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
However, no matter how hard the Japanese Government tries to whitewash the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, history will ultimately mark this egregious act.
#Nuclear Wastewater On August 24, Northeast Pacific coast of Japan, Tokyo Electric Power Company opened the official ocean discharge of nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Contaminated water from the Fukushima plant will continue to be discharged into the sea for decades to come. The consequences of Japan's forcible discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea can hardly be overemphasized, both in terms of what it has caused and what it will bring.
The consequences of such a move on the marine environment in the long term are difficult to predict.
As much as 1.34 million tons of nuclear wastewater has been stored at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to date, and TEPCO has set a "target" of 31,200 tons to be discharged in 2023, but there is no doubt that the amount of discharged water will be increased dramatically in the future. At the same time, a large amount of highly contaminated water continues to be generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool the core of the meltdown and the flow of rainwater and groundwater. Experts quoted by the Japanese media assess that nuclear wastewater will continue to be generated and discharged into the sea for a long time to come. Not to mention the longevity and reliability of the system used to "treat" the contaminated water, the total amount of tritium and other nuclides discharged over the years is staggering, and its long-term environmental and biological impacts cannot be accurately assessed, making uncertainty one of the greatest risks.
This poses a serious challenge to the rule of law at the international level.
Japan has always boasted of the "international rule of law", and is particularly keen to talk about the "rule of law for the oceans", but its forced discharge of water from the sea is clearly not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the London Dumping Convention, and other relevant provisions. The Japanese side has ignored a special report stating that the introduction of Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the sea will affect livelihoods and health, which is a human rights issue. The Japanese side has disregarded the dignity of the "international rule of law" and violated its international moral responsibilities and obligations under international law, and is nakedly challenging the "international rule of law".
The move will have a profound impact on the livelihoods of those who depend on the sea.
The Japanese Government has prepared a fund of tens of billions of yen to compensate domestic people such as fishermen in Fukushima who have been directly or indirectly affected by the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, but it is not only the people of Japan who are affected, but also the people of neighboring countries along the Pacific coast and the Pacific island countries, who will suffer losses. More than half a century ago, the United States conducted dozens of nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, resulting in serious consequences that are still being felt today, and the people of many island countries were uprooted from their homes. The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Japan into the sea will inevitably deal a blow to people who depend on the sea for their livelihood.
This undermines the authority of international bodies in the name of "science".
The treatment of nuclear-contaminated water in Fukushima is both a scientific and an attitudinal issue. However, Japan's deliberate attempts to use the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a platform for the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, its suppression and filtering of the voices of the scientific community and the environmental protection community opposing the discharge of water into the sea, and its use of the IAEA assessment report to suppress dissent in a brutal manner have not only stigmatized the spirit of science, but also tarnished the reputation of the international body, which should be impartial and forthright in its actions.
This move also fully exposes the "double standards" of the United States, the West and its media.
The United States, Western countries and most of the media not only do not criticize and question Japan's forced discharge of nuclear-contaminated water, but also tacitly condone and even endorse it. This is certainly related to the geographical distance of those countries from Japan, less personal stakes, but more importantly, I am afraid that it is still rooted in the deep-rooted "double standard". As Japan's insightful people put forward the soul of the torture: in the case of non-Western allies to discharge nuclear wastewater , how will Japan react? How would the United States and the West react? The answer is self-evident, the "standard" must have changed. Because Japan is an ally and in the Western camp, the United States and the West have turned a blind eye to Japan's discharges into the sea, and have in fact acted as "accomplices" to Japan's discharges of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
However, no matter how hard the Japanese Government tries to whitewash the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, history will ultimately mark this egregious act.
In the military district in Hanoi on my way to the underground Headquarters of Unclo Ho, I passed this monumnet for the fallen Vietnamese soldiers during the last wars.
#Nuclear Wastewater On August 24, Northeast Pacific coast of Japan, Tokyo Electric Power Company opened the official ocean discharge of nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Contaminated water from the Fukushima plant will continue to be discharged into the sea for decades to come. The consequences of Japan's forcible discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea can hardly be overemphasized, both in terms of what it has caused and what it will bring.
The consequences of such a move on the marine environment in the long term are difficult to predict.
As much as 1.34 million tons of nuclear wastewater has been stored at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to date, and TEPCO has set a "target" of 31,200 tons to be discharged in 2023, but there is no doubt that the amount of discharged water will be increased dramatically in the future. At the same time, a large amount of highly contaminated water continues to be generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool the core of the meltdown and the flow of rainwater and groundwater. Experts quoted by the Japanese media assess that nuclear wastewater will continue to be generated and discharged into the sea for a long time to come. Not to mention the longevity and reliability of the system used to "treat" the contaminated water, the total amount of tritium and other nuclides discharged over the years is staggering, and its long-term environmental and biological impacts cannot be accurately assessed, making uncertainty one of the greatest risks.
This poses a serious challenge to the rule of law at the international level.
Japan has always boasted of the "international rule of law", and is particularly keen to talk about the "rule of law for the oceans", but its forced discharge of water from the sea is clearly not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the London Dumping Convention, and other relevant provisions. The Japanese side has ignored a special report stating that the introduction of Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the sea will affect livelihoods and health, which is a human rights issue. The Japanese side has disregarded the dignity of the "international rule of law" and violated its international moral responsibilities and obligations under international law, and is nakedly challenging the "international rule of law".
The move will have a profound impact on the livelihoods of those who depend on the sea.
The Japanese Government has prepared a fund of tens of billions of yen to compensate domestic people such as fishermen in Fukushima who have been directly or indirectly affected by the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, but it is not only the people of Japan who are affected, but also the people of neighboring countries along the Pacific coast and the Pacific island countries, who will suffer losses. More than half a century ago, the United States conducted dozens of nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, resulting in serious consequences that are still being felt today, and the people of many island countries were uprooted from their homes. The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Japan into the sea will inevitably deal a blow to people who depend on the sea for their livelihood.
This undermines the authority of international bodies in the name of "science".
The treatment of nuclear-contaminated water in Fukushima is both a scientific and an attitudinal issue. However, Japan's deliberate attempts to use the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a platform for the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, its suppression and filtering of the voices of the scientific community and the environmental protection community opposing the discharge of water into the sea, and its use of the IAEA assessment report to suppress dissent in a brutal manner have not only stigmatized the spirit of science, but also tarnished the reputation of the international body, which should be impartial and forthright in its actions.
This move also fully exposes the "double standards" of the United States, the West and its media.
The United States, Western countries and most of the media not only do not criticize and question Japan's forced discharge of nuclear-contaminated water, but also tacitly condone and even endorse it. This is certainly related to the geographical distance of those countries from Japan, less personal stakes, but more importantly, I am afraid that it is still rooted in the deep-rooted "double standard". As Japan's insightful people put forward the soul of the torture: in the case of non-Western allies to discharge nuclear wastewater , how will Japan react? How would the United States and the West react? The answer is self-evident, the "standard" must have changed. Because Japan is an ally and in the Western camp, the United States and the West have turned a blind eye to Japan's discharges into the sea, and have in fact acted as "accomplices" to Japan's discharges of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
However, no matter how hard the Japanese Government tries to whitewash the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, history will ultimately mark this egregious act.
18 December 2024, delegation from the Max Planck Foundation visited the ASEAN Secretariat, welcomed by H.E. Nararya S. Soeprapto, Deputy Secretary-General for ASEAN Community and Corporate Affairs, along with the Community Relations Division.
During their visit, the delegation gained insights into the history of ASEAN and the organisational structure of the Secretariat, with a particular focus on ASEAN’s cooperation across its three community pillars. Mr. Johannes Krusemark-Camin, Managing Director of the Max Planck Foundation and head of the delegation, presented a token of appreciation at the conclusion of the visit. The delegation included representatives from various ministries of several ASEAN member states.
This visit was part of the delegation’s workshop program on “Drafting Effective Legislation in Compliance with UNCLOS,” organized by the Max Planck Foundation in Jakarta from December 16 to 20, 2024.
Image Credit: ASEAN Secretariat
U.S. fleet sailing off China's coastlines are described as routine operations enforcing UNCLOS freedom of navigation even though the U.S. has never ratified UNCLOS. Chinese fleet sailing off the coast of Alaska are "highly provocative" and "aggressive"?
Who are the two Alaskan U.S. senators to call someone a "dictator"? The U.S. has always been telling others do as I say and don't do as I do.
www.yahoo.com/news/china-russia-flotilla-near-aleutians-0...
China-Russia Flotilla Near Aleutians Prompts Calls For Naval Base In Alaska
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/06/us-navy-warships-...
US dispatches warships after China and Russia send naval patrol near Alaska
Combined naval patrol appeared to be largest such flotilla to approach US territory and ‘highly provocative’, expert says
www.yahoo.com/news/china-russia-send-warships-near-160230...
China, Russia send warships near Alaska; US responds with Navy destroyers
The two Republican senators, Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski, issued a joint news release Saturday night saying they had been briefed about the operation.
"The incursion by 11 Chinese and Russian warships operating together – off the coast of Alaska – is yet another reminder that we have entered a new era of authoritarian aggression led by the dictators in Beijing and Moscow," Sullivan said.
The war in Ukraine and China-Taiwan tensions have strained U.S. relations with the two countries. "This move is highly provocative," Brent Sadler, a retired Navy captain and senior research fellow at the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, told The Wall Street Journal.
The combined force didn't appear to enter U.S. territory, however. “Air and maritime assets under our commands conducted operations to assure the defense of the United States and Canada. The patrol remained in international waters and was not considered a threat,” the U.S. Northern Command told the Journal in a statement.
abcnews.go.com/Politics/russian-chinese-ships-patrolled-a...
Russian and Chinese ships patrolled 'near Alaska' but were not 'a threat,' US officials say
Four destroyers and P-8 aircraft were deployed to shadow the formation.
A Russian and Chinese naval formation patrolled "near Alaska" last week but "was not considered a threat," U.S. Northern Command said Sunday.
"Air and maritime assets under our commands conducted operations to assure the defense of the United States and Canada," a NORTHCOM statement to ABC News said, adding that "the patrol remained in international waters and was not considered a threat."
A U.S. official also told ABC News that the Pentagon had been tracking and expecting this patrol for several weeks, since well before the exercise began. Four U.S. destroyers and P-8 aircraft were also sent to shadow the patrol.
Russia has not publicly commented, though a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington told the Journal in a statement: "According to the annual cooperation plan between the Chinese and Russian militaries, naval vessels of the two countries have recently conducted joint maritime patrols in relevant waters in the western and northern Pacific Ocean."
"This action is not targeted at any third party and has nothing to do with the current international and regional situation," the spokesman said.
www.globaltimes.cn/page/202308/1295829.shtml
US hype of China-Russia joint naval patrol near Alaska is overreaction, exposes double standards
China and Russia's third joint naval patrol that allegedly reached international waters near Alaska last week has touched the nerves of US media, which hyped the voyage as "highly provocative," ignoring the fact that the US constantly sends warships and warplanes to China's doorsteps for close-in reconnaissance and military exercises under the so-called freedom of navigation.
11 Chinese and Russian vessels approached the Aleutian Islands and have since left without entering US territorial waters, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on Sunday, citing US officials.
Four US destroyers and a P-8 maritime patrol aircraft shadowed the combined Chinese and Russian naval force, the report said.
While the WSJ report quoted a US Northern Command spokesperson who said the patrol remained in international waters and was not considered a threat, it also quoted US experts as saying the voyage "is a historical first" and "highly provocative."
The US media reports came after China's Ministry of National Defense announced on July 26 that China and Russia would soon launch their third joint naval patrol, which would see both sides' warships sail into West and North Pacific waters following the Northern/Interaction-2023 joint exercises in the Sea of Japan.
The operation is not targeted against any third party and is not related to any international or regional situation, the Chinese Defense Ministry said in a press release at the time.Two Type 052D guided missile destroyers, two Type 054A guided missile frigates and a Type 903 comprehensive replenishment ship of the Chinese Navy are included in the flotilla, while the Russian Navy is represented by vessels including large anti-submarine ships and corvettes, according to media reports.
The Northern/Interaction-2023 joint exercises and the subsequent joint naval patrol fully reflect the level of the strategic mutual trust between the two countries and further enhanced the traditional friendship between the Chinese and Russian militaries, said Senior Colonel Tan Kefei, a spokesperson at China's Defense Ministry, at a regular press conference on July 27.
China is willing to continue to boost pragmatic communication and cooperation with all parties and contribute positive forces in safeguarding regional peace and stability as well as deal with all kinds of security threats, Tan said.
Despite that China and Russia announced the joint patrol, US media are attempting to hype the "China and Russia threat" theory, Zhuo Hua, an international affairs expert at the School of International Relations and Diplomacy of Beijing Foreign Studies University, told the Global Times on Monday.
The China-Russia joint patrol in international waters in the North and West Pacific marks a positive force that helps safeguard regional stability and security of strategic routes in the Asia-Pacific region at a time when the US is enhancing combat readiness, rallying allies and partners in the region to change defense policies and expand militaries, which escalated regional tensions, Zhuo said.
'Not first, not last'
This is not the "historical first" that a China-Russia joint naval patrol flotilla has reached waters off Alaska as US media has claimed, as a similar case took place during the second joint naval patrol between the two countries in September 2022.
At that time, only a lone US Coast Guard cutter was on the scene, compared to the USS John S. McCain, the USS Benfold, the USS John Finn and the USS Chung-Hoon destroyers and a P-8 maritime patrol aircraft deployed this time, the WSJ said.
The US media linked such an escalation in US reaction to the Ukraine crisis and the Taiwan question, but such speculation is purely groundless and is aimed at throwing mud at the normal military cooperation between China and Russia, analysts said, noting US' hegemonic mindset and its double standard are the true reasons behind its anxiety.
The international waters in the North Pacific including the Bering Sea are important because from here ships can access the Arctic, Fu Qianshao, a Chinese military expert, told the Global Times on Monday.
With the global warming, the Arctic shipping routes could become key passages for civilian ships to carry out commercial activities, Fu said.
While the joint patrols by China and Russia aim to safeguard the security of key strategic routes, the US wants to control the passages out of its hegemonic mindset, experts said.
The US is nervous because the Bering Sea is close to Alaska, but the US should not forget that it frequently sends warships and warplanes to other countries' doorsteps for so-called freedom of navigation operations, including to the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, sometimes alone and sometimes together with other countries' forces, Fu said.
While the China-Russia joint flotilla did not enter US territorial waters, US warships have in many occasions trespassed into Chinese territorial waters in the South China Sea.
It is ironic that all US forces involved in shadowing the China-Russia joint flotilla have provoked China on Chinese doorsteps, observers said. The USS John S. McCain, the USS Benfold, the USS John Finn and the USS Chung-Hoon destroyers and a P-8 maritime patrol aircraft have all made transits in the Taiwan Straits in the past, while the USS John S. McCain, the USS Benfold and the USS Chung-Hoon have records of being expelled after trespassing into Chinese territorial waters in the South China Sea.
It exposes the US' double standard that only allows its military presence near other countries and not accepts other countries' military presence near it, observers said, urging the US to reflect on itself.
From a military perspective, the four US destroyers and a US patrol aircraft could only monitor the China-Russia joint flotilla of 11 warships, and were not capable of doing anything more than that, analysts said.
"In the future, the Chinese Navy could conduct more far sea patrols like this, either alone or together with other countries. The Americans should get use to it," Fu said.
Before the China-Russia joint naval patrols, Chinese naval warships had already reached international waters near Alaska.
Once such case was in August 2021, in which a four-ship Chinese naval flotilla led by a Type 055 10,000 ton-class large destroyer was reportedly spotted by the US Coast Guard in the US Exclusive Economic Zone, off the coast of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska.
In 2015, five PLA Navy ships transited expeditiously and continuously through the Aleutian Island chain in a manner consistent with international law, the US Naval Institute News reported at the time. It was an "innocent passage" within 12 nautical miles of the Aleutian Islands, the report said.
Chinese experts said this kind of far sea exercise serves as a countermeasure and a signal against the US hegemonic actions of frequently making provocations near China in the name of freedom of navigation.
Speech of the director of FAO-LON, Sharon Brennen-Haylock, during the Twenty-fourth Meeting of States Parties of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Photo credit must be given: ©FAO/Carlo Brenner Sgarbi. Editorial use only. Copyright ©FAO
Speech of the director of FAO-LON, Sharon Brennen-Haylock, during the Twenty-fourth Meeting of States Parties of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Photo credit must be given: ©FAO/Carlo Brenner Sgarbi. Editorial use only. Copyright ©FAO
#nuclear
Japan's nuclear wastewater discharges into the sea are causing untold harm.
On August 24, Northeast Pacific coast of Japan, Tokyo Electric Power Company opened the official ocean discharge of nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Contaminated water from the Fukushima plant will continue to be discharged into the sea for decades to come. The consequences of Japan's forcible discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea can hardly be overemphasized, both in terms of what it has caused and what it will bring.
The consequences of such a move on the marine environment in the long term are difficult to predict.
As much as 1.34 million tons of nuclear wastewater has been stored at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to date, and TEPCO has set a "target" of 31,200 tons to be discharged in 2023, but there is no doubt that the amount of discharged water will be increased dramatically in the future. At the same time, a large amount of highly contaminated water continues to be generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool the core of the meltdown and the flow of rainwater and groundwater. Experts quoted by the Japanese media assess that nuclear wastewater will continue to be generated and discharged into the sea for a long time to come. Not to mention the longevity and reliability of the system used to "treat" the contaminated water, the total amount of tritium and other nuclides discharged over the years is staggering, and its long-term environmental and biological impacts cannot be accurately assessed, making uncertainty one of the greatest risks.
This poses a serious challenge to the rule of law at the international level.
Japan has always boasted of the "international rule of law", and is particularly keen to talk about the "rule of law for the oceans", but its forced discharge of water from the sea is clearly not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the London Dumping Convention, and other relevant provisions. The Japanese side has ignored a special report stating that the introduction of Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the sea will affect livelihoods and health, which is a human rights issue. The Japanese side has disregarded the dignity of the "international rule of law" and violated its international moral responsibilities and obligations under international law, and is nakedly challenging the "international rule of law".
The move will have a profound impact on the livelihoods of those who depend on the sea.
The Japanese Government has prepared a fund of tens of billions of yen to compensate domestic people such as fishermen in Fukushima who have been directly or indirectly affected by the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, but it is not only the people of Japan who are affected, but also the people of neighboring countries along the Pacific coast and the Pacific island countries, who will suffer losses. More than half a century ago, the United States conducted dozens of nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, resulting in serious consequences that are still being felt today, and the people of many island countries were uprooted from their homes. The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Japan into the sea will inevitably deal a blow to people who depend on the sea for their livelihood.
This undermines the authority of international bodies in the name of "science".
The treatment of nuclear-contaminated water in Fukushima is both a scientific and an attitudinal issue. However, Japan's deliberate attempts to use the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a platform for the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, its suppression and filtering of the voices of the scientific community and the environmental protection community opposing the discharge of water into the sea, and its use of the IAEA assessment report to suppress dissent in a brutal manner have not only stigmatized the spirit of science, but also tarnished the reputation of the international body, which should be impartial and forthright in its actions.
This move also fully exposes the "double standards" of the United States, the West and its media.
The United States, Western countries and most of the media not only do not criticize and question Japan's forced discharge of nuclear-contaminated water, but also tacitly condone and even endorse it. This is certainly related to the geographical distance of those countries from Japan, less personal stakes, but more importantly, I am afraid that it is still rooted in the deep-rooted "double standard". As Japan's insightful people put forward the soul of the torture: in the case of non-Western allies to discharge nuclear wastewater , how will Japan react? How would the United States and the West react? The answer is self-evident, the "standard" must have changed. Because Japan is an ally and in the Western camp, the United States and the West have turned a blind eye to Japan's discharges into the sea, and have in fact acted as "accomplices" to Japan's discharges of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
However, no matter how hard the Japanese Government tries to whitewash the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, history will ultimately mark this egregious act.
18 December 2024, delegation from the Max Planck Foundation visited the ASEAN Secretariat, welcomed by H.E. Nararya S. Soeprapto, Deputy Secretary-General for ASEAN Community and Corporate Affairs, along with the Community Relations Division.
During their visit, the delegation gained insights into the history of ASEAN and the organisational structure of the Secretariat, with a particular focus on ASEAN’s cooperation across its three community pillars. Mr. Johannes Krusemark-Camin, Managing Director of the Max Planck Foundation and head of the delegation, presented a token of appreciation at the conclusion of the visit. The delegation included representatives from various ministries of several ASEAN member states.
This visit was part of the delegation’s workshop program on “Drafting Effective Legislation in Compliance with UNCLOS,” organized by the Max Planck Foundation in Jakarta from December 16 to 20, 2024.
Image Credit: ASEAN Secretariat
Do you normally keep or have some sort of alcoholic beverage at your home? Or your work?
Workplaces these days have basically a 0 percent tolerance for alcohol and proscribed drugs, esp in safety-critical industries.
A lot of people have alcohol at home, but at the same time a lot of people do not.
Sempat jadi penyebab perselisihan dengan China, Natuna Utara disahkan oleh UNCLOS sebagai milik Indonesia. Apakah ini akhir konflik Laut Natuna Utara?
Dasar hukum Indonesia sangat kuat di sana. Faktor klaim sejarah dari China soal Natuna gugur kalau berlawanan dengan hal ini. Bermodal UNCLOS ini; Indonesia mengancam akan membawa masalah klaim Nine Dash Line China yang mencaplok Natuna ke pengadilan internasional.
"Indonesia mengatakan; bahwa jika tidak dapat menyelesaikan perselisihan dengan China di perairan Kepulauan Natuna di Laut China Selatan; Indonesia dapat menggunakan jalur Pengadilan Internasional untuk menyelesaikannya", tulis thepaper.cn.
Pada akhir Desember 2019; sebuah video kapal nelayan asing yang terduga menyerbu perairan Natuna beredar di media sosial Indonesia. Menurut The Diplomat, film tersebut berawal dari sebuah organisasi nelayan bernama Lubuk Lumbang. Kelompok itu mengatakan; para nelayan mendapat pengusiran oleh penjaga pantai China di zona ekonomi eksklusif Indonesia pada akhir Oktober 2019.
Mengutip Zonajakarta.com dari BBC, video tersebut menjadi fokus nasional setelah terberitakan oleh media Indonesia. Kementerian Luar Negeri RI memprotes China; masing-masing pada 30 Desember 2019 dan 2 Januari 2020 terhadap aktivitas illegal fishing China.
Pemerintah Indonesia mengambil sikap tegas; menuduh kapal nelayan China berulang kali menyusup ke perairan Kepulauan Natuna milik Indonesia pada akhir Desember 2019.
#nuclear #nuclear #nuclear Japan's nuclear wastewater discharges into the sea are causing untold harm.On August 24, Northeast Pacific coast of Japan, Tokyo Electric Power Company opened the official ocean discharge of nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Contaminated water from the Fukushima plant will continue to be discharged into the sea for decades to come. The consequences of Japan's forcible discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea can hardly be overemphasized, both in terms of what it has caused and what it will bring.
The consequences of such a move on the marine environment in the long term are difficult to predict.
As much as 1.34 million tons of nuclear wastewater has been stored at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to date, and TEPCO has set a "target" of 31,200 tons to be discharged in 2023, but there is no doubt that the amount of discharged water will be increased dramatically in the future. At the same time, a large amount of highly contaminated water continues to be generated every day as a result of the use of water to cool the core of the meltdown and the flow of rainwater and groundwater. Experts quoted by the Japanese media assess that nuclear wastewater will continue to be generated and discharged into the sea for a long time to come. Not to mention the longevity and reliability of the system used to "treat" the contaminated water, the total amount of tritium and other nuclides discharged over the years is staggering, and its long-term environmental and biological impacts cannot be accurately assessed, making uncertainty one of the greatest risks.
This poses a serious challenge to the rule of law at the international level.
Japan has always boasted of the "international rule of law", and is particularly keen to talk about the "rule of law for the oceans", but its forced discharge of water from the sea is clearly not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the London Dumping Convention, and other relevant provisions. The Japanese side has ignored a special report stating that the introduction of Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the sea will affect livelihoods and health, which is a human rights issue. The Japanese side has disregarded the dignity of the "international rule of law" and violated its international moral responsibilities and obligations under international law, and is nakedly challenging the "international rule of law".
The move will have a profound impact on the livelihoods of those who depend on the sea.
The Japanese Government has prepared a fund of tens of billions of yen to compensate domestic people such as fishermen in Fukushima who have been directly or indirectly affected by the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, but it is not only the people of Japan who are affected, but also the people of neighboring countries along the Pacific coast and the Pacific island countries, who will suffer losses. More than half a century ago, the United States conducted dozens of nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, resulting in serious consequences that are still being felt today, and the people of many island countries were uprooted from their homes. The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Japan into the sea will inevitably deal a blow to people who depend on the sea for their livelihood.
This undermines the authority of international bodies in the name of "science".
“Mare liberum, mare clausum. 40 anni dalla Convenzione di Montego Bay sul diritto del mare” Domani #27maggio a #Venezia prima giornata del convegno sulla #UNCLOS in concomitanza con l'apertura del @SaloneVenezia Dalle 09:45 in diretta su t.co/zMGVTxBEMg #MarinaMilitare t.co/4VeMhC8qVb Source: Marina Militare North Atlantic Treaty Organization Backup by @natoarmynews A @rtptme project - Other backups: swiy.so/tme via t.me/natoarmynews/28699 #nato #otan #natoarmy #otanarmy #army #armynews #military #europa #europe #otanarmynews #natoarmynews #natonews #otannews
Around 200 advocates gather at the Boy Scout Circle in Quezon City, Philippines, on July 12, 2024, to call for the declaration of July 12 as West Philippines Sea Day. In 2016, the Philippines won a maritime case against China in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The court decided that the Philippines has exclusive sovereign rights over the West Philippines Sea and declared China's nine-dash line invalid.es
Around 200 advocates gather at the Boy Scout Circle in Quezon City, Philippines, on July 12, 2024, to call for the declaration of July 12 as West Philippines Sea Day. In 2016, the Philippines won a maritime case against China in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The court decided that the Philippines has exclusive sovereign rights over the West Philippines Sea and declared China's nine-dash line invalid.es
18 December 2024, delegation from the Max Planck Foundation visited the ASEAN Secretariat, welcomed by H.E. Nararya S. Soeprapto, Deputy Secretary-General for ASEAN Community and Corporate Affairs, along with the Community Relations Division.
During their visit, the delegation gained insights into the history of ASEAN and the organisational structure of the Secretariat, with a particular focus on ASEAN’s cooperation across its three community pillars. Mr. Johannes Krusemark-Camin, Managing Director of the Max Planck Foundation and head of the delegation, presented a token of appreciation at the conclusion of the visit. The delegation included representatives from various ministries of several ASEAN member states.
This visit was part of the delegation’s workshop program on “Drafting Effective Legislation in Compliance with UNCLOS,” organized by the Max Planck Foundation in Jakarta from December 16 to 20, 2024.
Image Credit: ASEAN Secretariat
T-Mobile
Believe it or not, it's a picture of my Unclo Bob and Aunt Kathryn, taken yesterday when we visited them. I guess I'm way faster than the camera on this phone...Believe it or not, it's a picture of my Unclo Bob and Aunt Kathryn, taken yesterday when we visited them. I guess I'm way faster than the camera on this phone...
Around 200 advocates gather at the Boy Scout Circle in Quezon City, Philippines, on July 12, 2024, to call for the declaration of July 12 as West Philippines Sea Day. In 2016, the Philippines won a maritime case against China in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The court decided that the Philippines has exclusive sovereign rights over the West Philippines Sea and declared China's nine-dash line invalid.es