(1) A comprehensive approach is essential

Many coastal nations have only maritime borders with other countries. Accordingly, coastal nations must coordinate closely with their other countries to enable the benefits of the sea to be extracted and to eliminate factors that impede their use.

The maritime logistics that support the prosperity of the human race are conditional on the ability of each country to traverse the oceans freely. The activities of merchant marines are inherently global in nature, as commercial vessels cross vast expanses of ocean in the course of their duties. No single country can guarantee the safety of its vessels over such enormous distances alone. The problem is not only a geographical one. The condition of vessels themselves is an international issue, as the proliferation of flag-of-convenience and substandard vessels attests.

　

　

Fish stocks, a vital source of protein for humanity, are no respecters of a single country's borders. Fish move freely between the territories of one country and another, often circulating throughout the oceans. Both catching and preserving these fish may involve several nations.

The depletion of the world's fisheries is caused by two factors, overfishing and environmental damage. These factors are closely linked. For example, cases are known in which over-fished stocks were abandoned, resulting in environmental destruction. In not a few cases, of course, shipwrecks have been a direct cause of environmental damage.

Even the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, established to bring order to the extraction of the oceans' wealth, has given rise to new frictions, such as the archipelagic regime and the problem of freedom of movement.

When talking about maritime security and the sustainable use of the oceans' resources, we often emphasize economic, social and environmental aspects, but we must look further still. For example, naval strength is needed to eliminate barriers to maritime traffic, is important to enable the seas to be used safely, and navies are principal actors on the ocean save.

In sum, the security of the seas requires the concerted action of all countries and interests. As the title of this essay proclaims, maritime security can never be achieved without close international collaboration.

　

(2) Conditions differ markedly from country to country

While some countries exploit marine resources to the full, others, even those that boast a coastline, scarcely draw on those resources at all. Predictably, the former emphasize free access to resources while the later assert the rights accorded to them over their own resources. Many coastal nations are more insistent on their rights to marine resources than on the responsibilities that accompany them. The national power and perspectives of each nation vary widely. A closer look at actual conditions reveals that some countries end up abandoning a third of their catch in the sea, contributing to marine pollution, for lack of infrastructure such as storage facilities and refrigerated trucks, while the economic plight of others hampers their ability to police the seas, so that their ability to project national power in coastal waters cannot match their awareness of maritime issues. Still other nations have neither the economic strength nor the interest to preserve the seas; these countries may contract with richer nations to handle the disassembly of old ships and wash waste oil and other pollutants into the sea. Finally, some nations are well aware of the issues of maritime security and have the wherewithal to do something about it, but choose not to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to go their own way in areas such as free ocean passage and development of deep sea-bed resources. Disputes also arise in the interpretation of the Convention.

These differences in powers and perspectives mean that various countries have differing sets of values. Naturally, their attitudes toward maritime security are bound to vary as well.

　

(3) Is the sea really accepted as "the common heritage of mankind"?

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea underwent numerous transitions before an interpretation was rendered in 1982, and the document was finally ratified in 1994. Arvid Pardo declared at the time that "the sea is an asset shared by humanity in common." By this he meant that the legal status of the sea is that of an the common heritage of mankind, and that the nations of the world must maintain peace on the oceans, develop its resources rationally for the sake of the survival of humanity and work together at a global level to preserve the ocean's environment. Based on this guiding principle, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that marine resources are to be used in a sustainable fashion, the environment is to be protected for the sake of life on earth, and disputes involving the oceans are to be resolved in a peaceful manner. This vision has been hailed as a magnificent achievement, as it provides for a major role for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, the process by which the Convention was established reveals that the opinions and demands of each country are far apart from each other. The discussions took place amid opposition between the developed world and the developing world, and within the developing world between coastal and landlocked developing nations. Differences in military strategy also rose to the surface. The resulting text was a compromise, filled with vague expressions. Indeed, since the Convention came into force, many countries have asserted their rights while ignoring their responsibilities. Disputes over the Convention's interpretation have also occurred. These disagreements complicate issues of freedom of passage and territorial possession, giving rise to a host of new problems.

If the true meaning of the statement that "the sea is an asset shared by humanity in common were accepted and recognized by all countries, this state of affairs would never arise. At this point it cannot truly be said that each country truly endorses the vision that that "the common heritage of mankind."

　

(4) Do treaties or force govern international society?

Treaties (international law) or force (political power)? Western international law is rooted in force (political power), whereas Japan prefers to emphasize treaties (law). If we look closely, however, it is clear that the rules of the international community are generally predicated on power.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea came into force in 1994, when a quorum of countries ratified it. As discussed above, however, a plethora of problems have emerged, driven by the power relations among various countries. Furthermore, there are also countries, which resist ratification with the inclusion of major powers. It can be hardly said that the Law of the Sea governs the sea. If this state of affairs continues without amelioration, the enormous effort expended in drafting the Convention may prove to have been for naught.

It must be stated at the outset of this discussion that in the final analysis the rule of force underpins any framework governing international society, but the rule of force and the rule of treaties need not stand in absolute opposition. The global community cannot be governed on the basis of treaties alone; treaties must be backed by the power to enforce them as well as a common recognition of the importance of adhering to the terms of treaties. Similarly, if the international community is ruled by force alone, the global order would break down and problems that transcend national borders would be near-impossible to resolve. Both have their useful aspects, and the problem cannot be solved by choosing between one and the other.

We must therefore seek to preserve maritime security through having force (political power) compliment treaties (law). To achieve this, specific given to the support must be United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Because sufficient reason does not presently exist to enforce the Convention by force, redoubled efforts must be made to develop a common recognition and awareness of the Convention. Each country must use its own power to the best of its ability to observe international treaties, which in turn requires appropriate recognition of the Convention.

　

(5) Common understand

Maritime security requires an integrated approach and a common understanding that "the common heritage of mankind." This is impossible if each country continues to think only in terms of its own interests, as has been the case heretofore.

If we accept that "the common heritage of mankind," it naturally follows that we should treat the sea as a public heritage asset owned in common. The sea is not merely something from which we can extract benefits but a precious resource that must be managed. In other words, the oceans must be viewed not only in terms of rights but in terms of responsibilities as well. Coastal nations must refrain from unreasonable demands based solely on their perceived rights over the sea. It is essential that we reinforce awareness that these issues require the cooperation of the international community.

The nations of the world must forge a common recognition with respect to the conflict between rights and duties, between freedom and management and between autonomous action and cooperation.