Ownership of the sea: evaluating how culture affects the success of dispute resolution techniques in resolving maritime boundary conflicts

Abstract This article examines how culture affects the success of different alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms in resolving maritime boundary disputes. In order to measure the role that culture plays for the nations in conflict, the following explores nations’ bilateral diplomatic history and Hofstede’s Power Distance (Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions is a framework to evaluate countries’ cultural differences. This research focuses on the Power Distance dimension, which is further explained beginning on page 14) to determine what is the best means to resolve the dispute. Considering the wide range of dispute resolution techniques available to solve maritime conflicts, negotiation seems to be the most efficient means to resolve maritime boundary disputes, as it retains the bond of the parties in conflict. This was seen with the maritime boundary delimitation case between the low power distance countries of Australia and New Zealand, who preserved their strong relationship while determining who has jurisdiction over what. However, negotiation may be idealistic in a situation where states have a history of disagreements or political tension. Such is the situation between Eritrea and Yemen, where arbitration was ideal. Conversely, despite the aforementioned arbitration being between two high power distance countries, arbitration between other nations within a similar power distance bracket could not be as accepting. As seen within the landmark South China Sea case between the Philippines and contested China, the court arbitration result may be favourable to one country, but not by all parties involved. These case studies provide useful examples of how the cultures of the nations in conflict affect what ADR technique is appropriate in resolving maritime boundary disputes and the outcome of the resolution.