Editor's Note: Chen Xifeng is director of the Center for International Law of the Sea and Military Affairs at Xiamen University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On August 11, the U.S. Department of Defense published the executive summary of the Fiscal Year 2024, the "Freedom of Navigation Operational Challenges" report, on its website. This marks the 32nd consecutive report published by the U.S. DOD since 1991, once again placing China in the spotlight.

The report lists what the U.S. government unilaterally identifies as "excessive maritime claims," alleging that 11 countries and regions, including China, have engaged in so-called behaviors that impede freedom of navigation. The 2024 version is more selective than the 2023 edition. The number of countries and regions targeted by the U.S. has been reduced from 19 in 2023 to 11 in 2024, with all but three located in Asia. Notably, the list excludes the Philippines and other countries that have implemented similar practices in the South China Sea region.

The report once again designates China as the primary target of "Freedom of Navigation Operations," with the South China Sea being a key area for the implementation of such actions. The United States claims that four of China's practices in the South China Sea and East China Sea "do not conform to international law," including: "requiring prior permission for innocent passage of foreign military ships through the territorial sea," "restrictions on foreign aircraft flying through an Air Defense Identification Zone without the intent to enter national airspace," "the use of 'straight baselines' that allegedly violate international law" and "historic rights claims in the South China Sea."

As if to substantiate the content of this report, within two days of its release, the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Higgins, without the approval of the Chinese government, intruded into the territorial sea of China's Huangyan Dao. Meanwhile, the United States has completely turned a blind eye to the Philippines' repeated dangerous navigation activities and "excessive maritime claims" in the South China Sea this year. Even more egregiously, the United States has ignored Israel's naval and aerial blockade of the Mediterranean sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip since 2009, which has resulted in shocking humanitarian disasters. The changes in and selective targeting of countries under the "Freedom of Navigation Operations" fully demonstrate that the U.S. actions are not about maintaining an order based on international law rules, but rather an order based on U.S. rules per se.

As the so-called basis for its "Freedom of Navigation Operations," the U.S. government's unilateral determination of "excessive maritime claims" does not conform to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Issues such as whether foreign military ships enjoy the right of innocent passage in the territorial seas of coastal states, and whether military activities of foreign military ships in the exclusive economic zones and continental shelves of coastal states shall be restricted, are matters not explicitly regulated by UNCLOS. It cannot be determined unilaterally by any single country that the domestic legislation and claims of other countries are "excessive maritime claims." As a non-party state that refuses to join UNCLOS, the U.S. pays lip service to upholding the law of the sea, which is utterly hilarious. Of course, it is hardly surprising that the United States, long insisting on acting from a position of strength, regards itself as the ultimate adjudicator of global affairs.

The unease and discomfort caused by the U.S. "Freedom of Navigation Operations" in the international community are also reflected in their manner of execution. The United States has consistently believed that only military actions can avoid constituting so-called acquiescence to the maritime claims of other countries. However, as early as the 2008 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca case, the International Court of Justice confirmed that diplomatic statements could produce the same legal effect. By refusing to comply with the domestic regulation of coastal states regarding territorial sea and repeatedly intruding into their territorial seas at will, U.S. warships engage in acts of military provocation. These actions essentially demonstrate U.S. military presence and power projection in regions of interest and, of course, also serve as an opportunity to justify military expenditures borne by U.S. taxpayers. Essentially, the "freedom of navigation" claimed by the United States is the freedom to project its military power and the freedom to exceptionalize itself.

In the maritime and aerial domains targeted by the U.S. "Freedom of Navigation Operations," the dispute is not genuinely between the United States and the relevant coastal states over maritime or navigation and overflight rights. Rather, disputes may exist among the coastal states within the region, while the United States, as an external power, acts as a shit-stirrer, reigniting tensions in disputes that were tending toward calm and fueling already intense conflicts. 

Shortly after the release of the U.S. report, on August 11, several Philippine official vessels and fishery patrol ships intruded into the territorial sea of China's Huangyan Dao. This is not an isolated incident but a continuation of a series of provocative actions by the Philippines in the South China Sea in recent years. Whenever the Philippines creates friction around Huangyan Dao or Ren'ai Reef, the United States can often be seen lurking in the background, creating the perception of a U.S.-Philippine alliance challenging China's sovereignty. The illegal intrusion of the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Higgins into the territorial sea of Huangyan Dao on August 13 without the approval of the Chinese government is the latest example. By disregarding mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of disputes, the U.S. government's "Freedom of Navigation Operations" not only fail to contribute to the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the methods stipulated in Articles 2(3) and 33 of the UN Charter but also exacerbate conflicts and even undermine the international community's collective efforts to build the international maritime order.

The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea explicitly calls on all countries to refrain from actions that could complicate or escalate tensions. The region does not need provocation; rather, it requires cooperation, mutual trust, and stability – it should not be turned into a battleground for regional conflicts or great-power competition. Moving forward, the United States ought to carefully reconsider how it engages with other nations and what role it should play in the international community, particularly as its relative strength and military power may increasingly fall short of sustaining its unilateral narratives and actions.