Search

This paper outlines some basic proposals for developing good order at sea. It suggests that the key to promoting cooperation and establishing an effective maritime conflict prevention system lies in developing wider maritime awareness in the region, including a greater appreciation of the complexities and problems of marine environmental management. In effect, this is similar to the need perceived in the U.S. for maritime domain awareness as an essential element of Homeland Security. It recognizes that comprehensive knowledge of what is happening at sea is an essential element of maritime security although at a regional level, this knowledge and understanding can only be acquired through cooperative activities. Few coastal States possess sufficient capability to meet their maritime monitoring and information needs from their own resources. There have been several initiatives in regional forums over the years related to developing maritime knowledge and information exchange. However, due largely to the lack of both commitment and resources, few of these have matured into effective operational systems. The paper describes some of these initiatives and the problems that have prevented their full implementation. A major problem has been the failure to recognize the interconnected nature of the maritime environment and the need for cooperation to maximize the common good of Ocean Security. A possible way ahead involves a "building block" approach to achieving a higher level of maritime awareness, including an appreciation of the benefits of cooperation. This might be a three-tiered approach starting with some basic initiatives to promote maritime awareness and information sharing such as inter-agency and multilateral regional security workshops and marine information directories, and then moving through digital databases to an ultimate objective of real-time maritime surveillance and information exchange. These activities might lead to, or be associated with, the impleme

TIns paper was required to address the following questions: • In what ways do maritime interests and strategies of the U. S. and Russia contribute to the general security outlook towards the Asia-Pacific region after 9.11 ? • To what extent do the maritime strategies of these two countries take a cooperative approach toward the nations of the region? • Is the present level of bilateral or multilateral cooperation adequate and sufficient to meet these challenges to maintain regional security? These questions require a focus on the maritime interests and strategies of twn countries. The first is the sole remaining superpower that now sits astride of the world "like a Colossus". I The second is a former superpower that is now seeking to regain at least some of its fonner influence. The two countries are on the same side in the War on Terrorism but more generally their bilateral relationship remains stuck somewhere between any and possible adversary. My paper addresses each of the questions in turn. It fust discusses the regional security outlook and the contributions of the maritime strategies of the U.S. and Russia. It then considers the issue of security cooperation or more particularly, maritime security cooperation.

International law is clear on most issues associated with the conduct of marine scientific research (MSR) and hydrographic surveying but what is not clear is whether or not another State might conduct hydrographic surveys in an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) without the prior authorization of the coastal State. This paper reviews what is involved with MSR, hydrographic surveys and military surveys before reaching the conclusion that trends in recent decades with technology, the utility of hydrographic data and State practice require that hydrographic surveys in the EEZ should be under the jurisdiction of the coastal State. Paradoxically the arguments for military surveys in the EEZ being outside the jurisdiction of the coastal State appear stronger than those applying to hydrographic surveying. The paper offers some guidelines related to the conduct of MSR and hydrographic surveying in the EEZ but is not able to do so with regard to military surveys. This latter aspect requires further consideration outside the scope of this paper.

The Asia-Pacific region is distinctly maritime in character. When we centre a globe on the Pacific Ocean, the blue of the ocean almost obscures the littoral landmasses but spin the globe until it is centred on the mid-Atlantic and landmasses then dominate the oceans. Not surprisingly, Atlantic nations tend towards a continental view of security while Asia-Pacific nations have a maritime view. The importance of maritime security to many Asia-Pacific countries is reflected in the size of their merchant shipping fleets, a dependence on seaborne trade, expanding naval forces, and strongly promoted claims to offshore sovereignty and marine resources. Maritime security is likely to assume even greater importance in the future as economic growth proceeds, and countries become both more interdependent and more aware of the extent of their maritime interests. Events of September 11 and their aftermath have had the effect of bringing a new focus to some aspects of maritime security in the region but we should not lose sight of the enduring features that underpin maritime security.