NAVAL ACCESS AND LAW-BASED ORDER AT SEA: U.S. NAVAL MISSIONS AND EMERGING MARITIME REGIMES (DOCTRINE, STRAITS, LAW OF THE SEA, STRATEGY, FREEDOM OF THE SEAS, UNITED STATES).

摘要

The classical regime of freedom of the seas is being supplanted by an emerging maritime order of controlled access. The purpose of this study was to analyze this new order in terms of its impact on U.S. naval operations. The disjunction between U.S. naval doctrine and this emerging maritime order were examined, as were the implications for naval doctrine of U.S. rejection of the 1982 LOS Convention in favor of relying on customary law, reciprocal agreements, bilateral arrangements, and use of force.; This thesis was that U.S. rejection of the LOS Convention rests on a model of freedom of the seas that more closely approximates the "golden age" of mare liberum than it does the emerging maritime order of controlled access. The focus of the study was the nexus between regimes governing naval access to legal sea spaces and U.S requirements for access to those spaces for the purpose of exercising military power. The objectives of the study were to determine the degree to which U.S and Third World interests diverge on the issue of naval access to legal sea areas, and assess the impact of this divergence on U.S defense-related interests in access to legal sea spaces in the wake of U.S. rejection of the Convention.; Part I of the study summarizes the trends associated with the emerging order of controlled access, U.S. arguments in defense of its rejection of the Convention, and U.S. oceans policy as unveiled on March 10, 1983. Part II analyzes U.S. naval missions, the strategy of maritime superiority, new peactime naval realities affecting naval mobility and flexibility, and the relationship between naval doctrine, naval missions, and freedom of the seas. Part III analyzes regimes governing naval access to territorial seas, international straits, archipelagic waters, and EEZs. State practice was examined together with the history of codification efforts since 1930, and the provisions of the 1982 Convention were contrasted with customary law and the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea. The goal in each case was to weigh the benefits of the Convention's favorable provisions protecting U.S. defense-related interests in freedoms of navigation and overflight against the costs of rejecting the treaty.