The recent transit of the Taiwan Strait by the USS Chung-Hoon and Canada's HMCS Montreal underscore that allies are operating in areas of potential danger. These questions will loom large in any naval conflict in East Asia, and even in routine operations far short of it. And while many NATO states are party to the Hague Conventions and Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, the United States has not joined all these agreements and does not accept all their provisions as binding customary law. Similarly, allies may disagree on applying some elements of the law of naval warfare, such as blockade, in “non-international armed conflicts,” such as civil war. States reasonably disagree, for example, on the permissible scope of targeting the enemy’s warfighting or war sustaining effort, such as oil tankers. Powerful and influential maritime powers have genuine differences in how they interpret and apply the law of naval warfare. military should hasten to digest and incorporate it, from unit training to multinational exercises. A new manual produced by an international team of experts lays out the rules-and fissures-in this important but too-little-understood area of the law. Yet this task is complicated by the diverse views held by the world’s various navies.

or combined force would go to war without knowing the law of armed conflict, none should face the uncertain and perilous situation in the western Pacific without a firm grasp of the legal principles that guide naval warfare.

World of warships operations'