nations in open access to the oceans for navigation and overflight purposes. This careful balance of maritime zones appears to have reversed a disturbing trend known as "jurisdictional creep," whereby many coastal States claimed territorial seas of up to 200 NM in order to create a monopoly over coastal resources or for purposes of security. Despite the favorable current trend influenced by the Convention, excessive maritime claims may not disappear altogether, even if the United States becomes a party to the Convention. However, as an insider, the U.S. certainly would be in a much stronger and more authoritative position to invoke the Convention's geographic and functional limits on coastal State authority over offshore areas. Moreover, U.S. participation would all but ensure universality of the Convention, essentially guaranteeing that the provisions of the Convention will continue to be viewed as the governing rules of international law.
As a party to the Convention, the United States also will be entitled to make use of the dispute resolution apparatus to contest excessive claims. Since 1979, the United States has unilaterally contested excessive coastal claims diplomatically and operationally through the Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program. Those actions may still be required to enforce the norms of the Convention. However, to the extent we can decrease reliance upon FON challenges through enforcement of the Convention by diplomatic and legal means, the United States reduces political, military, and other costs. Also, because the Convention provides rules and procedures for fixing maritime boundaries, there should be a corresponding reduction in tension. [see Figure 6]
THE LOS CONVENTION HELPS TO DEFUSE REGIONAL DISPUTES IN LITTORAL AREAS AND LIMIT THEIR EFFECT
The end of the Cold War has shaken conceptions about the foundations of international peace and security. As witnessed by recent regional conflicts in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, and by ethnic rivalries in Africa, the nature of conflict is changing. The question today is less related to ideology; instead, actual and potential conflicts relate to who people are, where they will live, and what they will receive. Now and in the future, regional conflicts of one sort or another relating to religion, nationalist sentiments, etc., have the capability to outstrip the ability of the U.N. or regional security apparatus to find solutions. The conflicting claims of Greece and Turkey in the Aegean, the conflicting claims of six nations to the Spratly Islands, and the conflicting claims of five nations to the seabed resources of the Caspian are three regional areas which concern us because of the potential that any one of these situations may result in conflict. With respect to the Spratly Islands and the Aegean, there have been confrontations in the past.
