Legitimacy at Sea: Expanding Considerations of Sea Control

Sea control has been marketed and accepted as a norm within the global commons, with a variety of states arguing for their visions of control to be viewed as legitimate. As a piece of the global commons, sea lanes are a critical enabler for the global economy and possess significant military and political significance, yet the literature revolving around ideas of sea control treats it as a military achievement at the end of a campaign and remains focused on naval power as the key mechanism for state involvement. What best explains the mechanism states use to achieve sea control, especially when considering sea control as something beyond just a military objective? This dissertation argues sea control is a norm proposed by a single state, marketed to a set of regional actors for acceptance, and then considered legitimate once a majority of states within the region accept it. This framing reshapes sea control away from a process solely of military campaigns and towards a whole-of-government effort where multiple vectors of state power are exercised in presenting the norm of that state controlling the sea lanes, ranging from economic to military to the power of state narratives. This is explored through a process-tracing analysis of the sea control endeavors pursued by the United States in the Caribbean, China in the South China Sea, and Russia in the Black Sea. Ultimately, these cases point towards legitimacy as a factor promoting stability while the powers pursuing sea control build up their military capabilities to sweep rival fleets from the regional sea, highlighting the importance of nonmilitary contributions to a final military objective.