Law or power?

2026-01-26 - 23:14

Ayesha Mehmood and Laraib Ali NO authority but unspoken rules for all, but with customs and practices – over the centuries in the oceans and seas. In the current scenario, there is a huge transformation on the rules and regulations both in land and waters all across the world. Since increasing maritime related issues in the world, International Maritime Law has been passed through evolution and still evolving. Since inception, International maritime law has a promise of order, fairness, and freedom of navigation. The 70% transit oil passes through IOR, having critical choke points as well as connecting the world main continents. Geo-economic and geo-strategic importance for all the state and non-state actors has enhanced due to the presence of major actors. Moreover, regional and extra-regional naval presence, strategic alliances, and regional proximities increasingly inclined to reinterpret the norms of law. Law is used as an instrument to legitimize authority, instead of to curtail it. Maritime order gradually disintegrated due to various reasons including militarization of maritime spaces, overlapping maritime claims, and resource competition. The Indian Ocean has become a legal battleground due to a deeper conflict between international and domestic priorities. While major powers emphasize open seas and freedom of navigation, coastal states prioritize security, resource protection, and financial stability. Both approaches have legal grounding, but when applied independently, they become competing narratives rather than complementary frameworks. This creates loopholes and grey areas that can be exploited by state and non-state actors, resulting in regulatory uncertainty and enforcement challenges. Grey zones—ambiguous actions below formal thresholds—still generate significant strategic, legal, and political consequences, undermining maritime order. Grey zones are increasing as the competition at the sea increases. Actions that do not qualify as armed conflicts, including aggressive patrolling, maritime militia and grey sailing are pushing the boundaries of the current legal framework. These operations take advantage of the ambiguity in the law and escape open breaches, making them hard to trace. These practices over time become the norm and legitimize a behavior that weakens the spirit of Maritime Law, although technically such behavior might fall within the spirit of the letter. Maritime International Law, as codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—often called the “constitution of oceans”—provides a comprehensive framework defining territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, and navigation rights. It is intended to balance the interests of coastal states with those of the international community, promoting stability and cooperation. In reality, however, powerful states often apply UNCLOS selectively, enforcing it when it serves their strategic interests and challenging or ignoring it when it does not. This selective application transforms law into a tool of strategic competition rather than a stabilizing force. Operations framed as freedom of navigation may be viewed as lawful enforcement by some and coercive by others, weakening trust in legal principles designed to prevent conflict at sea. It is not the lack of law but the disparity in the force of law enforcement. The developing states in the Indian Ocean Region are not capable to level their naval forces or have the diplomatic power to establish their legal rights. Although the law acknowledges their exclusive economic zones and sovereign rights, safeguarding these rights needs to be done through surveillance and enforcement, as well as international support. In their absence, the legal entitlements are prone to encroachment, unlawful exploitation, and pressure. This dynamic change has grave implications to Pakistan and other regional states. Maritime security has more to do with legal clarity and institutional capacity in addition to naval preparedness. The economy of Pakistan has been very reliant on safe sea routes of communications, operating ports, and stable sea areas. There is a strategic weakness in an environment where power is becoming a dominant determinant of legal processes. It is the danger of creating an environment in which international norms alone succeed the state legal and enforcement mechanisms. At that point, the difference between law on paper and law in practice is an important debate. Warships are not enough to offer maritime security, neither can legal tools. Legal tools are not supported and implemented by political and rational actors. States need to invest in a domain of awareness in sea, coast guard proficiency, and legal skills to protect their rights as stated in the Maritime Law. Simultaneously, they should involve assertively in regional politics to avoid normalization of power based interpretations of the law. The law of the sea as a common ground or a mere instrument of rhetoric to implement the strategic ambitions is responsible to determine the future of maritime security in Indian Ocean. This is a threat to the security of the countries that rely on the stability of seas as opposed to powerful fleets. Maintaining the security of the maritime setting cannot be achieved only through naval presence but it takes more than that. Therefore, revival of dedication to legal consistency, collaborative enforcement and modification of maritime doctrine is need of the time. Thus, oceans are regulated by a rule rather than by force! —Both the writers are associated with the Maritime Centre of Excellence at Pakistan Navy War College, Lahore. (ali111.laraib1@gmail.com) & (ayeshamahmood474@gmail.com)