Hello Friends,
And happy last 36h of 2023!
With the number of interstate and intrastate conflicts on the rise over the past two years, the overall trend towards deglobalisation, and the increased tension about natural resources in parallel, I have realised how little I actually knew/understood about the international governance of the sea, ~70% of the Earth surface.
We have all heard about Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and Territorial Waters of course, but would we be able to explain their governing principles to a curious child? The kind of child who asks you why? and how? 5 times in a row? I realised I could not, and that it actually prevented from truly understanding how some situations were permissible, such as this map:
Or how a clear murder case law from 1970, United States v. Escamilla, would not get sorted out until 1984 after a trial, appeal, and retrial where the defendant was acquitted because the murder had happened floating island that didn't technically belong to any nation.
So I went down a Wikipedia rabbit - as happens way too often! - and thought I would share with you an abridged, illustrated summary of my key learnings. (I still could not make it fit into a Gmail-sized email, so please do not forget to open this post in your browser it ends up truncated.) Let’s dive in!
The concept of territorial waters began to take shape in the early 17th century, with the idea that coastal states should have sovereignty within certain limits only.
In parallel arose the regulation of the high seas as a global commons, where all states enjoy freedoms like navigation and fishing - in darkest blue below:
As concerns about security and customs enforcement grew after World War II, the international community recognized the need for an additional “contiguous” zone. This zone, extending up to 24 nautical miles from baselines, allowed coastal states limited control for security purposes. The Cold War era further emphasized the importance of maritime security, influencing the establishment of the contiguous zone.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982, marked a significant milestone. It introduced the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), granting coastal states exclusive rights to explore and exploit marine resources within 200 nautical miles. This extension of coastal state rights responded to emerging challenges and the growing importance of ocean resources.
This competition for exclusive rights to marine resources is the root cause of many disputes between nation-states, as illustrated by the most recent revival of the Venezuela vs. Guyana territorial claims.
Territorial Waters
UNCLOS also addressed the geopolitical implications of rights of passage through territorial waters and international straits. It sought to balance the interests of coastal states with the need for uninterrupted maritime transit, with hightened complexity with the extension of territorial limit standard from 3 nautical to 12 nautical miles.
UNCLOS defined the principles of Innocent Passage, allowing vessels to traverse another state's territorial waters without prejudicing its peace, security, or environment. This addressed concerns of coastal states while ensuring freedom of navigation, contributing to a balance between maritime security and global transit rights.
Transit Passage, applicable to straits used for international navigation, guaranteed the right of ships and aircraft to pass through without interference. This ensured unimpeded access to strategically important straits, reducing potential sources of conflict and maintaining global maritime connectivity.
This is what makes this map possible:
Enables Russia to leverage its Kaliningrad enclave to access the Atlantic ocean through the Baltic sea…
… and the Mediteranean through the Black Sea:
However this still creates critical tensions when superpowers feel like their territorial safety is at risk, like Russia (above), or China (below)
(For new subscribers: I already wrote a dedicated piece about China’s specific concerns and aspirations)
Because despite international treaties, in case of international conflict, might remains right and a few countries have the tactical ability to choke most of the maritime traffic that fuel the global economy:
EEZs
The establishment of EEZs raised geopolitical issues related to resource exploitation, especially in areas with overlapping zones. Competing claims in shared or adjacent EEZs underscored geopolitical challenges, necessitating diplomatic solutions for resource management and conflict prevention.
Some countries, like France and the UK, enjoying “disproportionately” large EEZs from islands from their past colonial empires in comparison with their land areas:
Disputes
UNCLOS also established dispute settlement mechanisms, recognizing the potential for conflicts arising from differing interpretations of maritime rights. These mechanisms, geared toward peaceful resolution, contributed to stability in geopolitical relations among coastal states.
Despite this framework, a significant number of disputes remains:
One of the most explosive one being the well-known South China Sea.
At first sight it does look like some countries claims are simply unreasonable…
… especially when compared with expected UNCLOS-prescribed EEZ limits.
But when looking at the root of the problem, i.e. EEZ-granting island territorial claims, one can at least understand why some mess is expected.
With global ratification, UNCLOS became a foundational framework for international maritime relations. Its widespread acceptance reflects a shared commitment to rules-based governance, fostering stability and cooperation in the geopolitical landscape of ocean governance.
It is important to note that despite the US not having signed/ratified UNCLOS, they still follow all of its principles apart from the high-seas as global commons principle.
Thanks for reading, and have an insightful year ahead!
V