The US Coast Guard recently released images of a fleet of four ships of China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) sailing near a US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) near Alaska's Aleutian Islands

I think the article is confused

Fraud in China has far worse consequences than fraud in Australia. Even if I were to be arrested, I'd prefer it to happen in Australia where I can get off with a slap on the wrist.

China's navy is by no means advanced enough to project power halfway across the globe. It's not been designed to do so, either: most of China's navy is designed to repel a naval invasion near Chinese waters.

It's considered breaking news and a gross overstep when China flies over an arbitrary EEZ line in the Taiwan Strait to enter another EEZ for even a second. That should tell you all you need to know about China's confidence in its own capabilities.

Australia claims they were flying there for surveillance to enforce sanctions on North Korea. UNCLOS stipulates what internationally lawful uses of the sea are (including freedom of navigation, overflight), and it's difficult to argue that foreign surveillance falls under that definition. Notably, surveillance does not fall under overflight, as overflight stipulates that no activities are conducted over the flyover that are not related to the flyover itself.

Your claim is that military surveillance is an internationally lawful use. That's insane. Your interpretation would allow Chinese and Russian aircraft to surveil within 12 miles of the US mainland, drop maritime survey beacons outside of key harbours (to spot submarines and map out the harbour), and do acrobatics within view of major US cities.

Again, dropping warning flares in front of an aircraft to intercept is standard policy. It's not even worthy of mention most of the time, and it's described in FAA rules.

US F-22s intercept Russian fighter jets, fire warning flares

Again, Australia has still refused to release videos of the incident despite calls from the British to do so.

Motherfucker are you dumb, blind, or arguing in bad faith? Literally your own exact motherfucking source says this.

2. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

UNCLOS Article 58.2 and 58.3

Jesus Christ if you're going to argue in bad faith at least make an effort.

Isn't this visit mostly centered around two things?

1. The Budapest-Belgrade HSR - $3 billion to connect two cities totalling more than 3 million people?

2. The BYD factory in Hungary - providing jobs to a country with cheap and skilled labour to build cars?

Less of a bridgehead, more of a "if Europe wants to removed and moan about foreign investment into Hungary, why weren't they doing this themselves?"

At least Saudi Arabia is doing something to guard against the imminent collapse of their oil economy... So that's good, I guess.

Not sure Neom is the project I would have funded to do so, but I imagine the Saudis are getting desperate.

While the developed world rests on its laurels having already developed key technologies that insulate from the worst effects of climate change, the Global South is attempting to push through rapid industrialization to achieve the same effects, bringing with it public infrastructure, electricity, robust food supply, reliable transportation, healthcare...

Meanwhile, the developed world looks at the Global South and says "ah, but why aren't you being greener about it? despicable! how dare you raise emissions?" while simultaneously restricting the free trade of essential green economy components like solar panels and batteries. The fact is, we don't actually care about climate change. Our political entities and economies are not structured to reward innovation in that space, so we simply end up pulling teeth to push through minor advances. Germany used to be a world leader in solar panels before it stagnated due to political pressure. The US used to be a world leader in developing nuclear before it stagnated due to political pressure. Japan used to be the world leader in batteries before it stagnated due to, well, Japan.

Falls under "freedom of overflight," which necessitates that when entering another country's EEZ you must

1. shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal state

2. shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal state

Per these stipulations, overflight is meant to be for peaceful purposes, not for e.g. spying, military coercion, etc. These are, more or less, the same conditions granted for innocent passage. Moreover, overflight often requires clearing with the government as per local laws and regulations.

There's an open debate in international law as to whether surveillance is considered a peaceful purpose... But if someone dropped sonar buoys ("surveillance") 12 miles out of Honolulu Harbor, you'd probably throw a fit.

Again, as I'll repeat, flares are literally described by the FAA as a way to intercept aircraft. The US has used them against Russian aircraft, but in fact the US also does so to intercept civilian aircraft!

F-16 dropping flares on a PA-18 for TFR violation

Current statements are that the helicopter was in "breach of Chinese EEZ" (Peter Cronau, ABC) and "within close range of Chinese airspace" (Chinese Foreign Ministry). Notably, the Australians have ignored calls by the British to release videos or GPS data on the incident.

When titles are this non-descriptive, it might help to give a more descriptive title.

I'm actually glad you asked. The area where the Australian helicopter was intercepted was in China's EEZ, near China's territorial sea.

Normally, there are no restrictions for aircraft's innocent passage through another country's EEZ. This statement holds for the Yellow Sea, the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, etc.

However, this is true specifically for innocent passage and overflight. Australia claims they were in China's EEZ to enforce UN sanctions on North Korea. The UN panel for monitoring sanctions on North Korea was disbanded last month, so Australia lacks the UN mandate to justify their presence. Moreover, ~~spying~~ monitoring is very distinctly not innocent passage, and sailing an armed vehicle through is also distinctly not innocent passage. Moreover, the Yellow Sea has no real candidate places to pass to, so Australia is hardly just passing through.

Of course, Australia could have also completed the entire mission within South Korea's EEZ (a country that's allied with Australia),

Or, put another way: if China parked their aircraft carriers 12 nautical miles from Taipei and started flying jets and helicopters within the EEZ but outside of the territorial sea, what do you think the response would be? If China launched a balloon that skirted around Taiwanese sovereign airspace but within Taiwan's EEZ, what do you think the response would be? "Just let it slide"?

The UN panel to monitor sanctions on North Korea ended in April. Australia has no mandate to monitor North Korea at this time.

The Yellow Sea is also not a body of water for which "innocent passage" is typically needed. It's a dead end body of water.

Moreover, if Australia was on UN business, there's an expectation that they should report their business to Chinese authorities to avoid this exact type of incident.