International legal instruments like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) do not fully address the lasting geopolitical disputes over the Indian Ocean. While these agreements are intended to provide structured and peaceful resolutions to conflicts over sea regions, disputes are fueled by politics, history, and strategic rivalry in practice.
Rules of law are only observed during realpolitik situations, and only enforced when it is convenient for the state’s interests. Arguments formulated based on boundary conflicts assume that there is a shared commitment to follow international law. This is seldom the case. It is of the fact that these conflicts are merely power struggles for resources such as oil, gold, natural gas, and massive ports of trade, which are considered symbols of national might.
Governments around the world use international treaties, not for resolving disputes, but to validate their position in the eyes of their people or the global arena.
The South China Sea is a prominent illustration of where UNCLOS has not been able to check the unilateral actions of significant states. After the ruling of the Arbitral Tribunal issued in favor of the Philippines in 2016, China resolutely declined to abide by the ruling. This exemplifies how legal instruments lose their power when states decide to disengage from them.
Without enforcing mechanisms, the non-compliance of states renders legal frameworks ineffective. The same trends are emerging in the Indian Ocean, where nations tend to prioritize geopolitics over compliance with international law.
Historical contexts invariably assist in justifying why legal frameworks often stand powerless. Take for example, Pakistan’s rivalry with India; it is safe to state that most of Pakistan’s maritime policies have been shaped because of that rivalry. Maritime disputes are not solely about economic considerations, as illustrated by Pakistan’s policies in the Indian Ocean, but equally about security concerns and geopolitical clout over the region.
The famous dispute between India and Pakistan over Sir Creek is a prime example. On record, this is an argument over a narrow waterway situated within the Rann of Kutch. However, both sides view this as part of a much larger struggle between them, particularly over the issue of Kashmir and sovereign integrity. In these scenarios, even if a legal framework exists, both sides refuse to be the losing party.
Legal interpretations differ from state to state, which further complicates legal solutions. Many nations in the Indian Ocean Region leverage UNCLOS to suit their interests. At times, nations even intentionally create overlapping claims to enhance their bargaining leverage. Such tactics transform an uncertainty of law into an asset instead of a liability. It becomes challenging for international law to serve as a neutral and efficient resolution when ambiguity is treated as a political advantage.
Recent research has shown that while legal frameworks have been put in place to address the disputes, international legal frameworks still lack the capacity to enforce laws. For instance, there are attempts to interpret and implement UNCLOS more actively.
However, compliance with such milestones is core dependent. In most cases, compliance to legal agreements is only guaranteed if they do not counter the interests of the shareholders. Therefore, the political landscape continues to dominate the effectiveness of the legal frameworks that have been established.
Some of the conflicts attempt to be managed with the aid of regional cooperation. IORA, for instance, was formed for the purpose of dialogue and confidence building among bordering states. In principle, these types of cooperation can help mitigate conflict.
However, in reality such cooperation tends to be limited. Many small states lack the political and economic resources to stand up to large players such as China, India, or the United States. As a consequence, many conflicts remain stagnant or become increasingly complex over time.
There are potential reasons to believe that the disputes might escalate further in relation to the maritime borders. Issues caused by climate change, rising sea levels, and the increased interest in resources found beneath the sea are creating new problems.
The debate at hand is no longer centered only on naval dominance. It also encompasses energy assets, environmental considerations, and international commerce. As these factors intensify, nations will increasingly resist legal determinations which restrict their impact over contested maritime areas.
To conclude, legal frameworks are unlikely to resolve many maritime disputes around the Indian Ocean anytime soon. There are available frameworks and tools for conflict resolution under global treaties such as UNCLOS, however, the real challenges are political.
These disputes stem from intense conflict within the region, influenced by great political rivalries, nationalism, and historical enmity. Countries tend to tap into maritime boundaries to assert dominance or counter foreign interference through aggressive maritime territorial claims.
So long as the pervasive political and strategic rivalries characterize the region, legal frameworks will have minimal effectiveness. In theory, these countries could cooperate, but in practice, the Indian Ocean is best understood as a region where power matters more than law.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are of the author and do not necessarily represent the institute’s policy.
Authored by: Eman Zahid Jokhio is a Masters student at Universitas Islam Internasional, Indonesia.
Read More: Evolving power dynamics
