On the 16th of June I had the pleasure to give a briefing at the Bahamas Conference on zones of peace in global waters, 16.6., New York (online). Here is the write up:
Zones of Peace as Regionalist Solutions: Navigating Global Ocean Politics
The oceans have captured significant high-level attention in recent weeks, with the UN Ocean Conference in Nice and the UN Security Council’s maritime security high-level open debate highlighting both consensus and fundamental tensions in global ocean governance. These events underscore a critical debate that has long shaped maritime policy: whether ocean challenges are better addressed through global frameworks at the UN level or through regional arrangements. The concept of zones of peace deserves recognition as a potential distinctly regionalist approach to ocean governance.
The Central Tensions in Ocean Politics
Two major tensions dominate contemporary ocean politics. First, there’s an ongoing struggle between ocean economy and environmental priorities on one side and maritime security concerns on the other. While states broadly agree on the importance of ocean governance, they often diverge sharply on whether to prioritize blue economy development, environmental protection, or security considerations. The recent Nice conference exemplified this tension, with economic and environmental advocates pushing for sustainable development frameworks while security-focused delegations emphasized threats ranging from piracy to territorial disputes.
Second, and more fundamentally, there’s the persistent question of scale: are ocean challenges best tackled through universal global agreements or through tailored regional mechanisms? This tension is hardly new—it haunted the lengthy Law of the Sea negotiations, where competing visions of global versus regional governance created deadlocks that took decades to resolve. A related challenge concerns scope: what constitutes the right regional framework, and which forms of cooperation are most appropriate for specific maritime challenges?
The Somalia piracy crisis (2008-2012) illustrates these dilemmas perfectly. Despite comprehensive global frameworks and international naval coalitions, the most effective responses emerged from regional coordination mechanisms that could adapt quickly to local conditions and cultural contexts. What surfaced was that regional approaches, while sometimes messier institutionally, often proved more agile and responsive than their global counterparts.
The Evolution of Regional Ocean Governance
Understanding zones of peace requires appreciating the broader evolution of regional ocean governance since the 1960s. The foundational period of the 1960s and 1970s saw three key innovations: Legally binding Regional Seas Conventions under the auspices of the UN Environment Programme that addressed specific maritime basins through environmental cooperation; the idea of transboundary Marine Peace Parks that treated ocean spaces as areas for collaborative conservation and exploitation overcoming border disputes; and Zones of Peace, particularly those linked to nuclear weapons restrictions, which sought to depoliticize and demilitarize specific ocean regions.
The Indian Ocean Zone of Peace, declared by the UN General Assembly in 1971, and the South Atlantic Peace and Cooperation Zone, established in 1986, represent early attempts to apply regionalist thinking to ocean security. These initiatives recognized that ocean spaces possess distinct regional characteristics—from the superpower competition that characterized the Indian Ocean during the Cold War to the decolonization dynamics that shaped South Atlantic politics.
Contemporary regional arrangements have become significantly more sophisticated and diverse. Ocean-focused regional organizations now include the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), the emerging Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation (PAC), BIMSTEC for the Bay of Bengal, the Gulf of Guinea Commission, and the Indian Ocean Commission. These provide institutional frameworks specifically designed for regional ocean governance, moving beyond the ad hoc arrangements of earlier decades.
Established regional organizations have also developed comprehensive sea-basin strategies—pursued particularly by the European Union with its Atlantic, Arctic, and Mediterranean maritime strategies. These represent systematic attempts to apply regional integration principles to ocean governance, treating maritime spaces as integral components of regional political and economic systems.
Operational mechanisms have proliferated as well. Maritime Domain Awareness and information-sharing systems create real-time regional cooperation networks that enhance situational awareness and response capabilities. Operational coordination mechanisms range from the US-led Combined Maritime Forces operating from Bahrain to various Coast Guard Function Forums in the Mediterranean and Arctic. Perhaps most importantly, regional learning networks of professionals now connect maritime practitioners across regions, fostering informal cooperation that often proves more effective than formal agreements.
Challenges and Opportunities
This rich landscape of regional ocean governance offers both opportunities and complications for reviving the zone of peace concept. The proliferation of regional mechanisms demonstrates clear demand for basin-specific approaches to ocean challenges. These arrangements can respond more quickly to emerging threats, accommodate cultural and political differences, and build trust among neighboring states in ways that global frameworks often cannot.
However, this proliferation also creates significant problems of scale and overlap. Multiple organizations frequently claim jurisdiction over the same ocean spaces, leading to institutional competition rather than cooperation. The Bay of Bengal, for instance, involves BIMSTEC, IORA, ASEAN, and various bilateral arrangements, creating coordination challenges that can undermine overall effectiveness.
Reimagining Zones of Peace
If we want to think with the concept of zones of peace again, three principles should guide our approach. First, we must work with existing regional architectures rather than creating new institutional layers. The goal should be to enhance and connect what already exists, not to duplicate efforts or add bureaucratic complexity. Zones of peace could serve as organizing principles that help coordinate among existing regional mechanisms while respecting their distinct mandates and approaches.
Second, we need to formalize informal cooperation, but we must do so softly. Many of the most effective regional ocean governance mechanisms operate through informal networks and flexible cooperation arrangements. Heavy-handed institutionalization risks destroying the adaptability and trust that make these arrangements work. Zones of peace could provide normative frameworks that support and legitimize informal cooperation without constraining its essential flexibility.
Third, we must ensure inter-regional coordination, which necessarily brings the UN back into the picture. However, this requires acknowledging the tensions between global and regional approaches rather than pretending they don’t exist. The UN’s role should be to facilitate coordination among regional zones of peace rather than to impose uniform global solutions that may not fit local contexts.
Conclusion
Zones of peace represent an important but underappreciated regionalist response to ocean governance challenges. As recent high-level discussions have demonstrated, the tension between global and regional approaches to ocean politics remains unresolved and, indeed, may be intensifying. Rather than viewing this as a problem to be definitively solved, we should recognize it as a productive tension that can drive innovation in ocean governance.
The zone of peace concept offers a promising way to embrace regionalism while maintaining essential global coordination. By building strategically on existing regional mechanisms, supporting rather than supplanting informal cooperation, and facilitating meaningful inter-regional dialogue, zones of peace could help bridge the persistent gap between local needs and global governance imperatives. In an era of increasing ocean challenges—from climate change to geopolitical competition—this regionalist approach deserves serious reconsideration as a vital component of our broader toolkit for effective ocean governance.