Die Territorialkonflikte im Arktischen Ozean und Südchinesischen Meer : das Seevölkerrecht als Konfliktkatalysator?

This dissertation addresses the research question of whether modern international maritime law acts as a conflict catalyst for territorial disputes by creating legal frameworks that exacerbate existing conflicts or generate new tensions. The focus is on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which, as the so-called "constitution of the oceans," aims to promote the peaceful use of maritime spaces. It determines how far the sovereignty of a coastal state may extend into maritime areas and defines for the first time an exclusive economic zone (200-nautical-mile zone) with exclusive but functionally limited rights. A central issue already emerges in the division of the world’s oceans: around 40 percent is divided among the coastal states. The remaining portion of the high seas as a common heritage of mankind can be further reduced, particularly through the possibility of extending the continental shelf up to 350 NM or 100 NM from the 2500-meter water depth line. Especially in geographically limited regions, this leads to overlapping claims and thus to bilateral or multilateral conflicts over delimitation. Against this background, the project first analyzes whether the territorial sovereignty thinking on the sea can be found, in whole or in part, in various epochs of history, what motives lie behind it, and to what extent this has shaped modern law of the sea. The exemplary analysis of territorial conflicts in the Arctic Ocean and the South China Sea demonstrates that, despite its comprehensive regulations and peacemaking intention, UNCLOS has a conflict-inducing effect in many areas. Recurring problem patterns can be assigned to specially developed categories. Particularly relevant is the extension of sovereign rights, which, by fully extending the concept of maritime zones to islands and rocks, also has a secondary impact on competing sovereignty claims to geographical formations and fuels disputes over their legal classification. Furthermore, missing definitions of terms emerge, leading to different interpretations of the UNCLOS treaty text, for example, with regard to the question of what constitutes a "strait used for international navigation”. Additionally, coastal states use various regulatory gaps and exceptions to legitimize extensive claims.