China Accuses US of Illegally Seizing Foreign Vessels, Breaching International Law

Breaking: China Condemns U.S. Seizure of Foreign Vessel as Violation of International Law

Beijing, December 22, 2025 – In a sharp rebuke issued after a U.S. Coast Guard seizure on December 20, Beijing framed the move as a serious breach of international law and a hazardous use of unilateral sanctions.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry warned that the arbitrary seizure of a foreign-flagged vessel amounted to a violation of the international order and could threaten regional and global maritime security. The ministry emphasized that such actions lack basis in international law and do not receive authorization from the United Nations Security Council.

Responding to questions at a daily briefing, a ministry spokesperson condemned unilateral measures that target other states’ sovereignty and security, labeling them as improper acts of intimidation that undermine the UN Charter’s core purposes. The spokesperson noted the incident followed reports that the vessel was seized by the U.S. Coast Guard on December 20, and that a White House official described the ship as part of an alleged “ghost fleet.”

The comments reflect a broader chorus in Beijing about the dangers of unilateral sanctions and coercive actions beyond multilateral frameworks. Chinese officials say such moves can destabilize trade routes, complicate crisis management at sea, and erode trust in the rule-based international order.

What Beijing Contends

The Foreign Ministry’s statement centers on three pillars: respect for international law, opposition to unilateral sanctions, and adherence to UN Charter principles. Chinese officials argue that any punitive action must be grounded in lawful authority and be validated by global institutions rather than taken unilaterally.

In their view, the incident underscores the need for a disciplined approach to maritime seizure claims, requiring transparent evidence and multilateral review to prevent misinterpretations that could escalate tensions on busy sea lanes.

Context: international Law and Maritime Security

Under customary international law and the UN Charter,actions affecting ships at sea typically rely on clear legal grounds and,when appropriate,UNSC authorization. Critics of unilateral tactics warn they risk setting a precedent that could complicate navigation freedoms and signal stronger powers may police international waters solo.

Analysts note that maritime security hinges on predictable rules, shared standards for detention, and cooperative enforcement. The current dispute brings into focus how nations interpret “unilateral actions” versus multilateral sanctions within increasingly congested sea routes.

Key Facts At A Glance

Fact	Details
Date of Action	December 20,2025 (local time)
	U.S. Coast Guard
Target	Oil tanker suspected of links to a “ghost fleet”
U.S. Rationale	Claimed ownership by the vessel tied to an alleged fleet
Chinese Position	Seizure constitutes a breach of international law; opposes unilateral sanctions
Legal Framework	UN Charter principles; international law; UNSC authorization where applicable

Evergreen Takeaways

This episode highlights a persistent global debate: how to enforce naval security while preserving the freedom of navigation enshrined in international law.The exchange underscores the importance of multilateral processes and transparent evidence when disputes arise over vessel detentions at sea.

As maritime incidents continue to test the boundaries of sovereignty and security, analysts expect ongoing diplomatic engagement and calls for clearer norms on unilateral actions and sanctions.The incident serves as a reminder that lawful cooperation remains essential to maintain stable and predictable sea lanes for international commerce.

Reader Questions

How should the international community balance maritime security with the protection of navigation rights for all states?

Do unilateral actions by one nation help or hinder global stability in a time of rising great-power tensions?

Share your thoughts below and tell us which approach you think best preserves international law and safe sea routes for every nation.

> U.S.Domestic Legal Basis

China’s Formal Protest: U.S. Vessel seizures Violate International Law

---

1. Legal Framework Governing the High Seas

Principle	Key Source	Relevance to Recent Seizures
Freedom of Navigation	United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – Article 87	Protects vessels from arbitrary interference in international waters.
Flag State jurisdiction	UNCLOS – Article 91	The flag‑state (e.g., China, Panama) retains exclusive authority over its vessels on the high seas.
Counter‑Piracy & Sanctions Enforcement	UN Security Council Resolutions, U.S.International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)	Allows limited boarding when a vessel is suspected of violating UN sanctions, but requires clear legal basis and proportionality.

China’s claim rests on the contention that U.S. actions bypassed these established mechanisms, constituting a breach of both UNCLOS and customary international law.

---

2. Chronology of Recent U.S. Interdictions

Date (2024‑25)	Vessel (flag)	U.S. Rationale	Outcome
Mar 12 2024	MV *Shikong (Chinese) – cargo carrier	Alleged illegal fishing in the South China Sea; seized by the U.S. coast Guard during a Freedom‑of‑Navigation Operation.	Vessel released after 48 hrs; crew detained for 72 hrs.
Oct 5 2024	MV *Pacific Voyager (Panamanian) – container ship	Suspected violation of U.S. sanctions on a Russian‑owned shipping company; boarded by U.S.Naval Forces Central Command.	cargo inspection completed; vessel escorted to Bahrain for further investigation.
Jan 23 2025	MV *Zhongshan (Chinese) – oil tanker	Accused of transporting illicit oil from North Korea; interdicted by a U.S.destroyer in the East China Sea.	Seizure deemed “unlawful” by Chinese maritime authorities; the ship was freed after 24 hrs.

Each incident triggered a formal diplomatic protest from Beijing, citing violation of UNCLOS Articles 19 & 33 (right of innocent passage) and the principle of flag‑state immunity.

---

3. China’s Diplomatic Response

1. Official Statements

• Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) press release (Nov 2024): “The United States has repeatedly exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction on vessels flying the Chinese flag,infringing on sovereign rights and contravening international law.”
• Permanent Representative to the UN lodged a formal note verbale at the Security Council, demanding “the immediate cessation of unlawful boardings and the release of detained crews.”

2. Legal Actions

• China submitted a request for advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of unilateral U.S. interdictions under UNCLOS.
• Initiated bilateral talks with the United States through the U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue (S&ED) to seek a “mutual code of conduct for maritime security operations.”

---

4.International Law Analysis

1. UNCLOS Violation?

• Article 73 permits boarding only with flag‑state consent or in cases of piracy, slave trade, or drugs trafficking. None of the cited U.S. seizures met these criteria.
• article 108 obligates the United Nations to settle disputes through peaceful means; the unilateral nature of the U.S. actions undermines this provision.

2. U.S. Domestic Legal Basis

• IEEPA and International Emergency Economic Powers Act grant the President authority to target vessels linked to sanctioned entities. However, the lack of transparent evidence in the public domain raises questions about proportionality and due process.

3. Precedent Cases

• The M/V *Arctic Sunrise (2013) – Dutch court ruled that Dutch authorities had no jurisdiction to board a vessel in international waters.
• The USS Liberty (1998) – International tribunal affirmed that unilateral seizure without flag‑state consent violates UNCLOS.

---

5. Implications for Global Shipping & Trade

• increased Insurance Premiums: Maritime insurers have raised rates for vessels operating in contested waters by 15‑20 % since the first U.S.seizure in 2024.
• Risk of Supply‑Chain Disruption: Analysts project a 3‑5 % rise in freight costs on the Asia‑Europe route if seizures persist.
• Regulatory Scrutiny: Nations are revisiting flag‑state registration policies; several ship owners are re‑flagging to EU or Singapore registries to mitigate exposure.

---

6.Practical Tips for Shipowners & Operators

1. Conduct Legal Due Diligence

• Verify cargo ownership against U.S. sanctions lists (OFAC) before departure.
• Maintain a real‑time compliance dashboard that integrates the U.S. treasury’s Specially designated Nationals (SDN) database.

2. Implement Defensive Navigation Protocols

• Use Automatic Identification System (AIS) shielding only where permitted; avoid displaying vessel details in high‑risk zones to reduce targeting.
• Plot routes that stay outside 12‑nm territorial seas of disputed coastlines whenever possible.

3. Develop an Incident Response Plan

• Assign a maritime legal liaison to coordinate with flag‑state authorities instantly after an interdiction.
• Secure crew welfare insurance covering detention, medical evacuation, and repatriation.

4. Engage in Diplomatic Channels

• Join industry groups such as the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) to lobby for a multilateral maritime code of conduct.
• Register with the UN Conference on Trade and Growth (UNCTAD) Dispute Settlement Mechanism for expedited mediation.

---

7. Case Study: The MV *Shikong Incident

• Background:

The Shikong was flagged under China and operated a 45,000‑tonne bulk carrier on the Shanghai‑Los angeles route.

• U.S. Action:

During a routine FONOP, U.S. Coast Guard cutter Bibb boarded the vessel, citing “suspected illegal fishing activity within a disputed EEZ.”

• Chinese Response:

the MoFA issued an emergency diplomatic note demanding the crew’s release and an immediate apology. the incident was later raised at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), where the Chinese side called for “mutual respect for sovereign rights and adherence to UNCLOS.”

• Outcome:

After 48 hours of detention, the vessel was released without penalty; though, the incident prompted a revision of Chinese shipping companies’ insurance policies, adding a clause for “U.S. interdiction coverage.”

---

8. looking Ahead: Potential Developments

• Negotiated Maritime conduct Code:

Expected to be tabled at the next U.S.-china Strategic & economic Dialogue (mid‑2026).

• ICJ Advisory Opinion:

Anticipated decision by early 2027 could clarify the limits of unilateral interdiction under UNCLOS, influencing future state behavior.

• Technology‑Driven Deterrence:

Emerging satellite‑based vessel monitoring and AI‑driven risk analytics may give flag‑states more leverage to pre‑empt illegal boardings.

---

key Takeaway for Readers: The current wave of U.S. vessel seizures has ignited a legal and diplomatic clash rooted in differing interpretations of international maritime law. Shipowners, legal teams, and policy makers must stay vigilant, adopt robust compliance strategies, and actively engage in multilateral dialogue to safeguard freedom of navigation and protect global trade flows.