The “freedom of the seas” is increasingly coming under attack – both literally and figuratively. Perhaps it’s time for a new “agreement” between politics and shipping – especially at a time when multilateralism isn’t exactly experiencing a hype at global scale.
It’s certainly not just about the Persian Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz, the Taiwan Strait, the Suez Canal: all places where current geopolitics are having a significant impact, and safe and free navigation cannot be guaranteed without restrictions. And who knows at which critical points the next blows will fall?
However things develop in the Persian Gulf, we are experiencing an involuntary turning point for shipping. Concrete political protection: absent. “It would be nice if those in charge acted a bit more intelligently,” a shipping manager recently told us.
The freedom of the seas—a much-cited pillar of international shipping policy—is crumbling at its very foundations. At the beginning of the 17th century, Hugo Grotius, one of the fathers of international law, proclaimed the principle of “Mare Liberum” (Free Seas). In short: politics should stay out of it.
What was initially perceived as a drastic limitation of political power later proved quite convenient for many rulers. It spared them the extremely arduous task of regulating the interests of diverse countries in an incredibly difficult-to-manage area. It wasn’t until much later, with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, that a (successful) attempt was made to provide shipping with an appropriate political framework on the international stage. Many smaller and larger agreements followed. But the maxim “Mare Liberum” remained. And it should continue to be so. There are many good reasons for this.
Shipping is flexible and can adapt to new circumstances. But there are limits. Currently, it is reaching such a limit. Perhaps it is time for a new “agreement” between shipping and politics. Too much is at stake.
A dismissive reference to the complexity of flag law, classes, and individual agreements may no longer suffice. How often is the so-called “primacy of politics” emphasized in the centers of power—that is, the absolute priority when it comes to maintaining order?
Those in power are challenged to find a security policy framework for shipping. The common good, as understood as part of Grotius’s maxim, is ultimately a public responsibility. This isn’t about political micromanagement, the strength of the windshield wipers on the bridge, or some other economic bogeyman. Rather, it’s about something fundamental: the relative absence of political power at sea and an adaptation of the institutional framework. “Staying out” no longer seems to be the appropriate maxim.
Of course, opinions on this can differ. Criticism of such an approach is inevitable. But it’s essential to be better prepared. And that’s especially true in a time when multilateralism isn’t exactly experiencing a boom. Everyone is dependent on shipping in one way or another—even if it’s “only” for supplying their electorate. Therefore, policy makers should have a vital interest in ensuring the safety of shipping – in short, making “intelligent decisions”, quite apart from this theoretical consideration and in a very concrete way.
Michael Meyer
Editor-in-Chief
HANSA International Maritime Journal &
HANSA.news global
