Maritime Sovereignty, Rights, and Cooperation

  • Andreas ØsthagenEmail author


Maritime issues have been climbing the political agendas since the early 2000s. This chapter explores the foundational background for how and why states acquired rights at sea in the first place, and how this fit with various conceptualisations of the maritime domain. It maps how states’ rights at sea came about more generally, and how the ocean differs from land in terms of sovereign rights and legal institutionalisation throughout the twentieth century. Concepts such as ocean governance, territorial waters, the EEZ and the continental shelf, as well as UNCLOS (Law of the Sea), are explained and discussed. Finally, this chapter turns to examine how and why states cooperate at sea, based on theories from the field of international relations.


Sovereign rights EEZ Continental shelf UNCLOS Maritime boundaries 


  1. Adler, Emanuel, and Michael Barnett. 1998. Security Communities. Edited by Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ásgeirsdóttir, Áslaug, and Martin C. Steinwand. 2016. ‘Distributive Outcomes in Contested Maritime Areas.’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 62 (6): 1284–1313.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, James S. 2013. ‘International Order in the Oceans: Territoriality, Security and the Political Construction of Jurisdiction over Resources at Sea.’ Thesis: Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia.
  4. Balci, Metin, and Russell Pegg. 2006. ‘Towards Global Maritime Domain Awareness—“Recent Developments and Challenges”.’ 2006 9th International Conference on Information Fusion, FUSION.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, Andrew, and Jeffrey T. Checkel, eds. 2015. Process Tracing: From Methaphor to Analytical Tool. International Encyclopedia of Political Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Benton, Lauren. 2010. A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Booth, Ken. 1985. Law, Force and Diplomacy at Sea. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, E. D. 1981. ‘Delimitation of Offshore Areas: Hard Labour and Bitter Fruits at UNCLOS III.’ Marine Policy 5 (3): 172–84.Google Scholar
  9. Bueger, Christian. 2015. ‘What Is Maritime Security?’ Marine Policy 53: 159–64.Google Scholar
  10. Byers, Michael. 1999. Custom, Power and the Power of Rules. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univeristy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, David. 1998. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  12. Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2005. ‘International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework.’ International Organization 59 (4): 801–26.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2008. ‘Constructivism and Foreign Policy.’ In Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, edited by Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne, 71–80. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fearon, James D. 1995. ‘Rationalist Explanations for War.’ International Organization 49 (3): 379–414.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1998. ‘Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation.’ International Organization 52 (2): 269–305.Google Scholar
  16. Friedheim, Robert L. 1993. Negotiating the New Ocean Regime. Columbia, NC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  17. Haas, Peter M. 1989. ‘Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control.’ International Organization 43 (3): 377–403.Google Scholar
  18. Hannigan, John. 2017. ‘Toward a Sociology of Oceans.’ Canadian Review of Sociology 54 (1): 8–27.Google Scholar
  19. Hensel, Paul R., S. McLaughlin Mitchell, Thomas E. Sowers II, and Clayton L. Thyne. 2008. ‘Bones of Contention: Comparing Territorial, Maritime and River Issues.’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 52 (1): 117–43.Google Scholar
  20. Hopf, Ted. 2002. Social Construction of Foreign Policy: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hurd, Ian. 1999. ‘Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics.’ International Organization 53 (2): 379–408.Google Scholar
  22. Jensen, Øystein, and Svein Vigeland Rottem. 2010. ‘The Politics of Security and International Law in Norways Arctic Waters.’ Polar Record.Google Scholar
  23. Johnston, A. I. 2001. ‘Treating, International Institutions as Social Environments.’ International Studies Quarterly 45 (4): 487–515.Google Scholar
  24. Kaye, Dalia Dassa. 2007. Track Two Diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
  25. Kelman, Herbert C. 1996. ‘Negotiation as Interactive Problem Solving.’ International Negotiation 1: 99–123.Google Scholar
  26. Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. 2012. Power and Interdependence. 4th-Kindle ed. Boston, MA: Longman.Google Scholar
  28. Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, Duncan Snidal, Barbara Koremenos, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. 2001. ‘International Organization Foundation the Rational Design of International Institutions.’ International Organization 55 (4): 761–99.Google Scholar
  29. Krasner, Stephen D. 1982. ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables.’ International Organization 36 (2): 185–205.Google Scholar
  30. ———, ed. 1983. International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lederach, John Paul. 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Levy, Marc A., Oran R. Young, and Michael Zürn. 1995. ‘The Study of International Regimes.’ European Journal of International Relations 1 (3): 267–330.Google Scholar
  34. Lichbach, Mark I. 2009. ‘Thinking and Working in the Midst of Things: Discovery, Explanation, and Evidence in Comparative Politics.’ In Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, edited by Mark I. Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman, 18–71. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mahan, Alfred T., and Charles Beresford. 1894. ‘Possibilities of an Anglo-American Reunion.’ The North American Review 159 (456): 551–73.Google Scholar
  36. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1998. ‘The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders.’ International Organization 52 (4): 943–69.Google Scholar
  37. Mearsheimer, John J. 1995. ‘The False Promise of International Institutions.’ International Security 19 (3): 5–49.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  39. Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.’ International Organization 51 (4): 229.Google Scholar
  40. Neffenger, Peter V. 2014. ‘Testimony of Vice Admiral Peter V. Neffenger Vice Commandant on Implementing U.S. Policy in the Arctic.’ House Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.Google Scholar
  41. Norwegian Government, and Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2014. ‘Nordkloden’. Nordområdene Statusrapport 2014, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo.Google Scholar
  42. Nyman, Elizabeth. 2013. ‘Oceans of Conflict: Determining Potential Areas of Maritime Disputes.’ SAIS Review of International Affairs 33 (2): 5–14.Google Scholar
  43. Østhagen, Andreas. 2015. ‘Coastguards in Peril: A Study of Arctic Defence Collaboration.’ Defence Studies 15 (2): 143–60.Google Scholar
  44. Paine, Lincoln. 2013. The Sea and Civilization: A Maritime History of the World. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  45. Prescott, Victor, and Clive Schofield. 2004. Maritime Political Boundaries of the World. Leiden, NLD: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  46. Ruggie, John Gerard. 1993. ‘Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations.’ International Organization 47 (1): 139–74.Google Scholar
  47. Salayo, N. D., Ahmed M., L. Garces, and K. Viswanathan. 2006. ‘An Overview of Fisheries Conflicts in South and Southeast Asia: Recommendations, Challenges and Directions.’ Naga The WorldFish Center Quarterly 29 (1 and 2): 11–20.
  48. St-Louis, Carole. 2014. ‘The Notion of Equity in the Determiniation of Maritime Boundaries and Its Application to the Canada–United States Boundary in the Beaufort Sea.’ Thesis: Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
  49. Steinberg, Philip E. 1999. ‘Navigating to Multiple Horizons: Toward a Geography of Ocean-Space.’ Professional Geographer 51 (3): 366–75.Google Scholar
  50. Till, Geoffrey. 2004. Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century. London: Frank Cass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tilly, Charles. 1990. Coercion, Capital and European States: AD 990–1990. 1st Ed. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. UN. 1958. Convention on the Continental Shelf, Geneva April 29, 1958.Google Scholar
  53. Vasquez, John A. 1995. ‘Why Do Neighbors Fight? Proximity, Interaction, or Territoriality.’ Journal of Peace Research 32 (3): 277–93.Google Scholar
  54. Waltz, Kenneth N. 1959. Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  55. ———. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  56. Weil, Prosper. 1989. The Law of Maritime Delimitation—Reflections. London: Grotius Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  57. Wendt, Alexander E. 1994. ‘Collective Identity Formation and the International State.’ The American Political Science Review 88 (2): 384–96.Google Scholar
  58. ———. 1999. ‘Social Theory of International Politics.’ American Political Science Review 94: 429.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fridtjof Nansen InstituteLysakerNorway

Personalised recommendations