History provides numerous examples of maritime worlds whose character was informed by the superior sea powers that created them. Today the developed maritime world is being swallowed up by a new sea power, amid a paradigm shift that is transforming the maritime world as we know it. The process much resembles the rise and fall of human society itself. In this section, we recollect in terms of "sea powers" some of the marine societies that have risen to prominence and then disappeared in the course of history. We believe that these lessons are directly relevant to the issues facing seafaring nations and international society today.²⁵

　

The first manifestation of a seafaring world occurred in the Mediterranean Sea. In 480 BC the Battle of Salamis pitted a continental power, Persia, against a seafaring city-state, Athens. Victorious over the Persians in this decisive battle, the Athenians at a stroke took control of the eastern Mediterranean, only to be subjugated by Macedonia a century later. In 265 BC the First Punic War began. Over the course of the three Punic Wars, Rome destroyed Carthage, capturing control over the western Mediterranean as its prize. The naval Battle of Salamis marked the first geopolitical conflict between a land-based and a seafaring power, while the Punic Wars were the first to establish hegemonic power over the seas. With the end of the Punic Wars, the Mediterranean became a Roman lake, but the Romans scarcely ventured beyond it, instead turning the Mediterranean into an enclosed sea.

　

In sum, the history of the Mediterranean progressed from a war between a continental power and a seafaring power, which established a true sea power, to a hegemonic conflict between two seafaring forces, which gave rise to a maritime world ruled by sea control; this sea control created an enclosed sea. For the purposes of this discussion, we will call this latter result an "enclosed maritime world."

　

During the many centuries in which the Mediterranean was an enclosed maritime world, a highly cosmopolitan "transnational maritime world" took shape in the oceans of Asia, from the Arabian Sea to the coastal seas of China.

　

In 1957 an 11.07m wooden rudder was found in the remains of a Ming-dynasty shipyard in Nanjing. The rudder is thought to have belonged to the "treasure ship" or flagship of the great Muslim Chinese navigator Zheng He, who led a great fleet of enormous vessels in the famed Nan Hai expeditions by order of the emperor Yong Le. Zheng He led seven of these expeditions, traveling as far as the east coast of Africa. Regardless of whether the rudder actually belongs to Zheng He's treasure ship, it is fascinating to observe the advanced shipbuilding technology the Ming Chinese possessed, which enabled them to build such huge vessels and embark on such heroic voyages many years before the dawn of the European Age of Navigation. Throughout the vast Eurasian continent, from the China Sea through the Indian Ocean to Arabia, the ancient empires of Indian and China prospered through the creation of a borderless maritime trade zone, built by sea powers whose keynote was the natural law of freedom on the seas. This maritime world was transformed when Vasco da Gama discovered a route to the Indian Ocean.

　

Returning to the Mediterranean, the long winter of the Middle Ages came to an end with the spring of the Renaissance. As the Ottoman Turkish Empire grew in prosperity, it was able to force open a trade route between the Mediterranean and the Orient, releasing Europe from the constraints of its closed maritime world and enabling it to venture into the outer oceans. Spain and Portugal opened the Age of Navigation, spurring rapid advances in navigation, shiphandling and shipbuilding. While this was occurring, the Ottoman Turkish Empire began to press its advance into the Mediterranean. At this time the Roman navy had shrunk to a shadow of its former self.

　

The Turkish army conquered Constantinople, the seat of the Eastern Roman Empire, then moved on to capture Cyprus. To stem the tide of Turkish invasion of the Mediterranean. Venice, the Papal States and Spain seconded naval units to form the Holy League. At this time only Venice possessed a reserve fleet, and the Papal States and Spain dithered in cobbling their fleet together and assigning a commander, losing a great deal of time in setting sail. Finally in 1571 , the Holy League joined battle with the Turkish fleet in the waters off Lepanto on the Peloponnesus. The Battle of Lepanto resulted in the loss of 230 Turkish ships and 208 ships, mainly galley vessels, for the Holy League. The battle spelled victory for the Holy League and the destruction of the Turkish fleet.

　

After the Battle of Lepanto, the European powers broke out of their formerly enclosed sea, the Mediterranean, advancing into the Atlantic (routes through the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean had already been opened). At this time the "freedom of navigation" was tightly tied to exclusive possession of naval power. Those seafaring nations with sufficient "sea power" to exert the necessary "sea control" were able to secure lanes of commerce over broad swaths of ocean. Although the custom of "freedom of the seas" would take considerable time to emerge, the seeds of a maritime world characterized by freedom of the seas were now planted. Eventually a maritime world with freedom of the seas would be subsumed in a transnational maritime world.

　

Both of the world wars of the previous century can be viewed to a large extent as struggles for sea lines of communication (SLOC). In the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, each side waged campaigns to capture sea control. After World War II, the United States and Soviet Union played out their strategic confrontation on the world's oceans. Although the freedom of the seas was in principle the cornerstone of the use of marine resources, in practice the structure of military confrontation defined the rules of the game. With neither side able to establish hegemony, there was no room for reduction of naval forces. At the same time, measures to build mutual trust were taken to prevent the naval arms race from spiraling out of control, bringing stability to the strategic environment on the oceans. The maritime world of the Cold War was thus characterized by a balance of power.

　

The Cold War structure crumbled as the Western alliance, led by the United States, began testing the balance of power by strengthening its naval and other capabilities. As the Cold War drew to a close, so did the balance of power as a feature of the maritime world.

　

At the same time, the globalization of economic activity was turning maritime commerce into an increasingly borderless enterprise, and numerous countries deepened their involvement with the oceans in the quest for marine resources. As a result, a number of old problems rose to the surface while new ones cropped up to join them. To deal with these issues, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was promulgated, and a wide range of agreements and arrangements were made with regard to the management of the oceans, ushering in a new age of a "managed maritime world."

　

The paradigm shift to a managed maritime world can be expected to proceed through a process of establishing the following two factors that are presently lacking. If these items are not established clearly, the managed maritime world may degenerate into a chaotic maritime world.

The factors that must be defined are:

　

The basic principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are sustainable development of the oceans, peaceful resolution of maritime conflicts and international cooperation. Ocean management is closely tied with these important principles. In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, less formally known as the Earth Summit, mooted a blueprint called Agenda 21. Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 emphasizes the importance of a preventive approach to the preservation of resources and the environment. At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, colloquially called the Environment Summit, an action plan was tabled calling for both preventive and recovery measures. Given the will to do so, people can create an ocean management regime for sustainable development of the oceans, peaceful resolution of conflicts at sea, international cooperation and a program of prevention and recovery.

　

The deliberations on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea headed into stormy seas with the dispute between seafaring countries, which insist on the freedom of the seas, and coastal nations, which demand to reserve jurisdiction over the resources of their coastal waters. The Convention was drafted during the days of the Cold War, when the oceans were a theater of strategic naval competition. Both the Soviet Union and the United States placed priority on security, building formidable naval presences. In order to deploy these naval forces, the superpowers depended on the freedom of the seas as an absolute condition, which completely contradicted the agenda of coastal nations seeking to extend their areas of jurisdiction. The coastal nations continued to press their demands for extended jurisdiction, however, and a compromise was reached: The countries that wished to support the freedom of naval activity recognized territorial jurisdictions but obtained freedom of passage, while the coastal nations secured jurisdiction over exclusive economic zones. The debate on freedom of the seas versus rights of jurisdiction was hardly exhaustive. It was only possible to establish the Convention by excising any discussion of security issues. Elizabeth Mann Borgese, then honorary chair of the International Ocean Institute (IOI), announced that naval forces and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea were "divorced." Of course, no discussion of international maritime law could possibly be conclusive when security issues are omitted, as the omission precludes any solution to the trilemma of the oceans. The various issues not discussed at the conference on the law of the sea, namely maritime security, maritime development and the various problems of marine pollution, must be discussed in full if ocean management is ever to become feasible.

　

Today a host of disputes have risen to the surface regarding territorial jurisdiction versus freedom of the seas, including the activities of navies in EEZs and the right of innocent passage of naval vessels through territorial waters.²⁶ These conflicts arise from problems of history between coastal and seafaring nations. Their causes are numerous and deep-rooted, in many cases involving conflict over national interest and national defense between seafaring nations, who were able to exert influence through their powerful navies, and coastal nations, which lacked strong naval forces. A comprehensive future agreement will depend on finding a common understanding on security matters between seafaring nations and coastal nations and proceeding with discussions on that basis.

　

A number of scenarios have emerged for the structure of the maritime world. The maritime world is defined by the naval forces, or sea powers, that control it and support the existing order on the seas. When the balance of power on the oceans breaks down, the danger exists that a chaotic maritime world may emerge. To avert this danger, a new sea power must be created to enable a paradigm shift toward sustainable development and peaceful settlement of disputes.