Search

Begin New Search Topic Oceans and Seas Political Geography Europe

1. Albania-Greece Sea Issue Through the History Facts and the Future of Conflict Resolution

Author:
Senada Reci and Luljeta Zefi
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
The issue of the sea between Albania and Greece has been and continues to be an object of study for various authors. Research shows so far that many studies have tried to go slightly from the descriptive to the explanatory and analytical framework and have generally fallen into the ‘trap’ of subjective approaches creating the phenomenon of nationalism. That appears in different forms, damaging the spirit of friendship and cooperation between both countries. This paper analyzes relations between Albania and Greece and their evolution based on international acts until the decision of the Albanian Constitutional Court annulling the agreement between them on the issue of the sea as incompatible with the constitution in terms of absolute objectivity. The demands of the Greek state for extension with 12 miles under the magnifying glass of the interpretation of the norms of the international law of the sea, the principle of equality and equity are part of the insistence on gaining superiority in the sea area vis-à-vis Albania. All this leading to the dialogue for another treaty cooperation and friendship occupy a vital part of the facts, which constitute an ongoing open discussion about the future of the sea issue on the Hague International Court.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Water, Conflict, Borders, and Oceans and Seas
Political Geography:
Europe, Greece, and Albania

2. Maritime Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) from the French Perspective

Author:
Joanna Siekiera
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
Sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea became a key topic for the negotiations since the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro. Ocean change is now the most significant threat facing humanity, especially those living in coastal areas. The possible and already observed loss of territory, and thus sovereignty of the submerged states, is not the only legal consequence of ocean change happening now, in the 21st century. Another factor is the downsizing of Exclusive Economic Zones, which implies political tensions between the neighboring countries, both sovereign and dependent territories of the former colonial powers. France is present in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean via its overseas collectivities. Thus, instead of being at the 45th position in the world’s ranking of the ocean powers, the Republic of France comes in the second position, straight after the United States of America. This high and indeed precious position, both geostrategically and economically, affects its views toward the United Nations negotiations process on biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction.
Topic:
Maritime, Diversity, Oceans and Seas, and Territory
Political Geography:
Europe and France

3. Brexit and the consequences for fisheries management in the North Sea

Author:
Gordon Munro
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
UK in a Changing Europe, King's College London
Abstract:
The North Sea is a very productive fishing area of great importance to surrounding coastal states Norway, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Denmark and Belgium, with an average total harvest in recent years of slightly more than 1.8 million tonnes. This report explains why the cooperative management of the six shared North Sea fish stocks has been so stable to date and considers what lessons this success holds for the world at large. The report also speculates on the post Brexit management of these resources. The lessons learned from cooperative management over 40 years may well have an impact also on future cooperation between Norway, the UK and the EU27.
Topic:
International Cooperation, European Union, Economy, Brexit, Oceans and Seas, and Fishing
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and Netherlands

4. Journal of Advanced Military Studies: Naval Integration and the Future of Naval Warfare

Author:
Michael Flynn, Andrew Rhodes, Michael F. Manning, Scott Erdelatz, Michael Kohler, John T. Kuehn, B. A. Friedman, Steven A. Yeadon, Matthew C. Ludlow, Terje Bruøygard, and Jørn Qviller
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
In 2019, the 38th Commandant of the Marine Corps released his planning guidance that laid out the strategic focus and future direction of the Marine Corps. General David H. Berger’s intent for the following four years concurred with the analysis of the previous Commandant and the necessary alignment of the Corps with the National Defense Strategy for the future needs of the Fleet by focusing on five areas: force design, warfighting, education and training, core values, and command and leadership. General Berger cogently noted that the coming decade will be characterized by conflict, crisis, and rapid change—just as every decade preceding it. And despite our best efforts, history demonstrates that we will fail to accurately predict every conflict; will be surprised by an unforeseen crisis; and may be late to fully grasp the implications of rapid change around us. Berger’s primary concern is that the Marine Corps is not fully prepared— equipped, trained, or organized—to support the naval force. To that end, force design became the priority for Marine Corps efforts to fulfill its role for the Fleet as prescribed by the U.S. Congress. The level of change required to integrate the Corps of the future with the naval forces of today would not happen overnight and certainly not without a great deal of growing pains to ensure the Corps is equipped and prepared for the future security environment. When Force Design 2030 was released in March 2020, the Marine Corps was prepared to make the force-wide changes necessary to partner with the Navy and serve as the country’s naval expeditionary force. Our current force design, optimized for large-scale amphibious forcible entry and sustained operations ashore, has persisted unchanged in its essential inspiration since the 1950s. It has changed in details of equipment and doctrine as technology has advanced toward greater range and lethality of weapon systems. In light of unrelenting increases in the range, accuracy, and lethality of modern weapons; the rise of revisionist powers with the technical acumen and economic heft to integrate those weapons and other technologies for direct or indirect confrontation with the U.S.; and the persistence of rogue regimes possessing enough of those attributes to threaten United States interests, I am convinced that the defining attributes of our current force design are no longer what the nation requires of the Marine Corps. Berger’s plan pointed to specific areas of change required to make force design a reality: the size, capacity, and capability of the Corps. In an austere fiscal environment, the Marines must assess their current capabilities to achieve a smaller footprint with broader reach—do more with less. As the reality of COVID-19 and the 2020 U.S. presidential election have so poignantly reminded us all, these tasks cannot and should not rest on any single shoulder and any response should be well considered and intended to benefit the greater good. This issue of the Journal of Advanced Military Studies (JAMS) will address elements of the Commandant’s Planning Guidance, particularly the concept of naval integration and what it means for the Services, especially the Marine Corps. Our authors look to the past for relevant examples of military successes and failures of integration, but they also discuss how future warfare will play out based on these concepts. The authors explore the topic from a variety of perspectives, including those for and against, and they offer analyses of past and current attempts and what naval integration may mean for the future of the Corps. The following articles present the capabilities that will be required to shift from a traditional power projection model to a persistent forward presence and how the Marine Corps can exploit its positional advantage while defending critical regions. Our first author, Dr. Matthew J. Flynn, presents a historical approach to the topic in his article “The Unity of the Operational Art: Napoleon and Naval Integration.” Flynn’s research calls for greater coordination between the sea and land domains to improve U.S. national security. His article draws parallels between Napoleon Bonaparte’s defeat and the importance of naval integration for military success: “Napoleon’s fate reveals a great deal about naval integration and how it explains France’s defeat and, most importantly, that there is but one operational art—not one for land and one for sea.” Our second author, Andrew Rhodes, also relies on a historical example with his discussion of the salient lessons that can be learned from the Sino-Japanese War. Rhodes encourages professional military educators and planners who are developing future operational concepts to look beyond simply retelling history and consider how the legacy of this conflict might shape Chinese operational choices. He reinforces From the Editors 9 Vol. 11, No. 2 the concept that military history is not simply a resource for answering concerns about future conflict, but it encourages us to ask better questions about the role of the sea Services and how they can handle uncertainty when preparing for the future. Lieutenant Colonel Michael F. Manning’s “Sea Control: Feasible, Acceptable, Suitable, or Simply Imperative” offers a historical review of early twentieth century Japanese naval battles as a framework to model possible future contests for control of the maritime domain. Manning believes that control of the maritime domain is a prerequisite for assured access and sets the condition for successful Joint operations. Manning believes that “nations not only have to compete with their enemy’s major air and naval capabilities but must also defend against land-based airpower; missiles; torpedoes; short-range, antisurface warfare assets; and coastal mines.” Colonel Scott Erdelatz (Ret) and his team of coauthors focused on an old approach for a new era of naval integration that acknowledges the long-term threat posed by China but also considers how much of what we know as the Marine Corps should be retained to fulfill other missions. Erdelatz et al. also analyze how radical integration might incur significant risk for the Marine Corps if long-term force structure decisions are based on still-evolving concepts and unproven technologies. Major Michael Kohler’s article, “The Joint Force Maritime Component Command and the Marine Corps: Integrate to Win the Black Sea Fight,” discusses how most current Marine and Navy integration takes place at the Service-chief level and primarily focuses on the Pacific. Kohler, however, believes that naval integration is also an important component of a successful defense against Russian expansion in the Black Sea region. Dr. John T. Kuehn shifts the focus to carriers and amphibious operations with his article “Carriers and Amphibs: Shibboleths of Sea Power.” Dr. Kuehn argues that aircraft carriers and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs) with an embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit represent shibboleths of seapower that conflate a deeper understanding of where the U.S. Fleet belongs now and where it needs to go in the future to face the challenges of the twenty-first century. Major B. A. Friedman’s article, “First to Fight: Advanced Force Operations and the Future of the Marine Corps,” then circles back to the traditional Marine Corps stance as always first to fight and the need for advanced force operations in the Corps of the future. Steven A. Yeadon’s article, “The Problems Facing United States Marine Corps Amphibious Assault,” rounds out the current perspective with a review of issues the Marine Corps has faced with amphibious assaults. Yeadon offers actionable information on current limitations and vulnerabilities of U.S. amphibious forces to chart a way forward for a robust forcible entry capability from the sea. The discussion closes with two articles looking to the future of naval in- 10 From the Editors Journal of Advanced Military Studies tegration and the Marine Corps. Major Matthew C. Ludlow’s article, “Losing the Initiative in the First Island Chain: How Organizational Inefficiencies Can Yield Mismatched Arsenals,” presents what may be considered a losing proposition of initiatives in China’s First Island Chain; however, strategic gaps in capabilities have emerged that could dramatically impact the ability to execute an island-defense strategy. The final article by Lieutenant Colonels Terje Bruøygard and Jørn Qviller, “Marine Corps Force Design 2030 and Implications for Allies and Partners: Case Norway,” offers a larger discussion of Force Design 2030 and its future implications for American allies with a case study on Norway. The authors encourage the Department of Defense to consider greater interoperability between and among Services and allies, including increased communication with allies on changes happening at the Service and national level of the U.S. armed forces. The remainder of the journal rounds out with a review essay and a selection of book reviews that continues our focus on naval integration, but it also highlights continuing challenges in national security and international relations. The coming year will be busy for the JAMS editors as we work to provide journal issues on a diverse range of topics relevant to the study of militaries and defense.
Topic:
Defense Policy, War, History, Military Strategy, Power Politics, Armed Forces, Military Affairs, Geopolitics, Navy, Oceans and Seas, and Seapower
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, Europe, Norway, Asia, North America, United States of America, and Black Sea

5. Maritime Biodiversity from the French State’s Perspective

Author:
Joanna Siekiera
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
“Together, protecting marine biodiversity: know how to act” was the French governmental conference organized by three ministries in Paris on 12 March 2020. Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture and Alimentation, and Ministry for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition along with two research think tanks, Ifremer and OFB have organized the “day of biodiversity”. Participants were mostly researchers, governmental and local officials, business leaders, fishermen, representatives of associations and foundations, all from France. Thus, the language of the conference was French. The conference took place in the 13th century Collège of Bernardins, a former Cistercian college of the historic University of Paris. Experts and audience shared reflections and discussions on major research issues on ocean change, as well as the French position towards global maritime policy in order to find proposals for sustainable management and protection of the ocean.
Topic:
Climate Change, Maritime, Diversity, and Oceans and Seas
Political Geography:
Europe and France