Strategy21

Korea Institute for Maritime Strategy (한국해양전략연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Influence of Naval Power upon the Resolution of Maritime Territorial Disputes

해군력이 해양 영토분쟁의 해결에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2018.11.30
  • Accepted : 2018.12.26
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As the South China Sea maritime dispute illustrates, when considering the place where maritime claims occur, states do not have many choices to respond to maritime claims in which disputed areas are located far away from the land and are surrounded by the sea. As Mearsheimer (2014) points out, the sea stops power projection. Therefore, in order to adopt coercive as well as peaceful settlement policies to deal with maritime claims, states need to overcome obstacles (the sea) to project power. It means that if states want to conduct a specific foreign policy action, such as negotiating maritime borderlines or arguing sovereignty on islands, they need a tool (naval power) to coerce or to persuade the opponent. However, there are lack of research that studies maritime claims from the perspective of naval power. This research project fills this gap based on naval power. How do relative levels of naval power and (dis) parities of naval power influence the occurrence of MIDs over maritime claims? Naval power is a constitutive element during maritime claims. If disputants over maritime claims have required naval power to project their capability, it means that they have the capability to apply various ways, such as aggressive options including MIDs, to accomplish their goals. So, I argue that when two claimants have enough naval power to project their capabilities, the likelihood of MIDs over maritime claims increases. Given that one or both states have a certain level of naval power, how does relative naval power between two claimants influence the management of maritime claims? Based on the power transition theory, I argue that when the disparities of relative naval power between claimants becomes distinctive, militarized conflicts surrounding maritime territory are less probable. Based on the ICOW project which codes maritime claims from 1900 to 2001, the empirical results of the Poisson models show if both claimants have projectable naval power, the occurrence of MIDs over maritime claims increases. In addition, the result shows that when disputants maintain similar relative naval powers, they are more likely to initiate MIDs over maritime claims. To put it differently, if naval capabilities' gap between two claimants becomes larger, the probability of the occurrence of MIDs decreases.

Keywords

References

  1. A Asgeirsd O ottir, A Aslaug and Martin Steinwand, "Distributive Outcomes in Contested Maritime Areas: The Role of Inside Options in Settling Competing Claims," Journal of Conflict Resolution, November 21(2016).
  2. Bolks, Sean and Richard Stoll, "The Arms Acquisition Process: The Effect of Internal and External Constraints on Arms Race Dynamics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol.44, No.5(2000).
  3. Bouchat, Clarence, Dangerous Ground: The Spratly Islands and U.S. Interests and Approaches, Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, 2013.
  4. Boulding, Kenneth, Conflict and Defense: A General Theory, New York: Harper and Bros., 1962.
  5. Cameron, Colin and Pravin Trivedi, "Regression Based Tests for Overdispersion in the Poisson Model," Journal of Econometrics, Vol.46, No.3(1990).
  6. Cameron, Colin and Pravin Trivedi, Regression Analysis of Count Data, 2nd edition, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
  7. Cameron, Colin and Douglas Miller, "A Practitioner's Guide to Cluster-Robust Inference," Journal of Human Resources, Vol.50, No.2(2015).
  8. Clausewitz, Carl von, On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984[1832].
  9. Codebook for Maritime Claims Data Issue Correlates of War(ICOW) Project (2002).
  10. Congressional Research Service (CRS), China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities - Background and Issues for Congress. Washington, D.C.: CRS, 2017.
  11. Corbett, Julian, Some Princes of Maritime Strategy, New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1911.
  12. Crescenzi, Mark, Kelly Kadera, and Sara Mitchell, "A Supply Side Theory of Mediation," International Studies Quarterly, Vol.55, No.4(2011).
  13. Crisher, Brian Benjamin and Mark Souva, "Power at Sea: A Naval Power Dataset, 1865-2011," International Interactions, Vol.40(2015).
  14. Crisher, Brian Benjamin, "Naval Power, Endogeneity, and Long Distance Disputes," Research and Politics, January-March(2017).
  15. Daniels, Kelly and Sara Mitchell, "Bones of Democratic Contention: Maritime Disputes," International Area Studies Review, Vol.20, No.4(2017).
  16. Diehl, Paul, A Road Map to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflicts, Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1999.
  17. Diehl, Paul and Gary Goertz, War and Peace in International Rivalry, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.
  18. Donaldson, John and Alison Williams, "Understanding Maritime Jurisdictional Disputes," Journal of International Affairs, Vol.59, No.1(2005).
  19. Dougherty, Christopher, Introduction to Econometrics(4th edition), New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  20. Druce, Stephen and Efri Yoni Baikoeni, "Circumventing Conflict: The Indonesia-Malaysia Ambalat Block Dispute," In Mikio Oishi(ed.) Contemporary Conflicts in Southeast Asia, New York: Springer, 2016.
  21. Fravel, Taylor, "China's Strategy in the South China Sea," Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol.33, No.3(2011).
  22. Gompert, David, Sea Power and American Interests in the Western Pacific, Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2013.
  23. Gooch, John, "Maritime Command: Mahan and Corbett," In Colin Gray and Roger Barnett(ed.) Seapower and Strategy, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1989.
  24. Hansen, Holley, Sara Mitchell and Stephen Nemeth, "IO Mediation of Interstate Conflicts: Moving beyond the Global versus Regional Dichotomy," The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol.52, No.2(2008).
  25. Hensel, Paul, "Contentious Issues and World Politics: The Management of Territorial Claims in the Americas, 1816-1992," International Studies Quarterly, Vol.45(2001).
  26. Hensel, Paul, Sara Mitchell, Thomas Sowers, and Clayton Thyne, "Bones of Contention: Comparing Territorial, Maritime, and River Issues," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol.52, No.1(2008).
  27. Hensel, Paul and Sara Mitchell, "From Territorial Claims to Identity Claims: The Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol.34, No.2(2017).
  28. Hosti, Kalevi, Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648-1989, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
  29. Johnson, Dominic and Monica Duffy Toft, "Grounds for War: The Evolution of Territorial Conflict," International Security, Vol.38(2013/14).
  30. Jones, Daniel, Stuart Bremer, and David Singer, "Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol.15(1996).
  31. Kadera, Kelly and Sara Mitchell, "Heeding Ray's Advice: An Exegesis on Control Variables in Systemic Democratic Peace Research," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol.22, No.4(2005).
  32. Klein, Natalie, Maritime Security and the Law of the Sea, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  33. Koo, Min-Gyo, Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia, New York: Springer, 2010.
  34. Kraska, James, Maritime Power and the Law of the Sea, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  35. Lektzian, David, Brandon Prins, and Mark Souva, "Territory, River, and Maritime Claims in the Western Hemisphere: Regime type, Rivalry, and MIDs, 1901 to 2000," International Studies Quarterly, Vol.54, No.4(2010).
  36. Lemke, Douglas and Suzanne Werner, "Power Parity, Commitment to Change, and War," International Studies Quarterly, Vol.40, No.2(1996).
  37. Lemke, Douglas, Regions of War and Peace, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
  38. Levy, Jack and William Thompson, Causes of War, Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
  39. Liddell Hart, B. H., Strategy, Second Revised Edition, New York: Fredrick A. Praeger, 1967.
  40. Lykke, Arthur, "Toward an Understanding of Military Strategy," In Joseph Cerami and James Holcomb(ed.) U.S. Army War College Guide to Strategy, US Army War College Press, 2001.
  41. Mahan, Alfred Thayer, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783, New York: Dover Publications, 1987.
  42. Markowitz, Jonathan and Cristopher Fariss, "Going the Distance: The Price of Projecting Power," International Interactions, Vol.39, No.2(2013).
  43. Mearsheimer, John, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: Norton, 2014.
  44. Mitchell, Sara and Paul Hensel, "International Institutions and Compliance with Agreements," American Journal of Political Science, Vol.51, No.4(2007).
  45. Mitchell, Sara and Peter Trumbore, "Rogue States and Territorial Disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol.31, No.3(2014).
  46. Modelski, George and William Thompson, Seapower in Global Politics, 1494-1993, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1988.
  47. Nemeth, Stephen, Sara Mitchell, Elizabeth Nyman, and Paul Hensel, "Ruling the Sea: Managing Maritime Conflicts through UNCLOS and Exclusive Economic Zones," International Interactions, Vol.40, No.5(2014).
  48. Nyman, Elizabeth, "Oceans of Conflict: Determining Potential Areas of Maritime Disputes," SAIS Review of International Affairs, Vol.33, No.3(2013).
  49. Nyman, Elizabeth, "Offshore Oil Development and Maritime Conflict in the 20th Century: A Statistical Analysis of International Trends," Energy Research & Social Science, Vol.6(2015).
  50. Ostrom, Elinor, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  51. Owsiak, Andrew and Sara Mitchell, "Conflict Management Regimes and the Management of Land, River, and Maritime Claims," Political Science Research and Methods (2017).
  52. Senese, Paul, "Geographic Proximity and Issue Salience: The Effects on the Escalation of Militarized Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol.15, No.2(1996).
  53. Singer, David, "Reconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset on Material Capabilities of States, 1816-1985," International Interactions, Vol.14(1987).
  54. Storey, Ian and You Ji, "China's Aircraft Carrier Ambitions: Seeking the Truth from the Rumors," Naval War College Review, Vol.57, No.1(2004).
  55. Till, Geoffrey, Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century (2 edition), New York: Routledge, 2009.
  56. Valencia, Mark and Nazery Khalid, "The Sulawesi Sea Situation: Stage for Tension or Storm in a Teacup?," The Asia-Pacific Journal (January 28, 2009).
  57. Vasquez, John, The War Puzzle Revisited, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  58. U.S. Department of Defense, "Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program," http://policy.defense.gov/OUSDP-Offices/FON (검색일: 2018. 5.29.).
  59. "Angry China Shadows U.S. Warship near Man-made Islands," https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa/angry-china-shadows-u-s-warship-near-man-made-islands-idUSKCN0SK2AC20151027/ (검색일: 2018. 7.16.).
  60. "Beijing Rejects Tribunal's Ruling in South China Sea Case," https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china/ (검색일: 2017. 7.16.).
  61. http://data.icow.org(ICOW data 홈페이지).