Security Dilemmas in Maritime Law Enforcement Due to Overlapping Claims Between Coastal and Archipelagic States

Abstract

The delimitation of maritime boundaries remains one of the most complex issues in the international law of the sea. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982), particularly Articles 74 and 83, mandates coastal states to delimit their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf by agreement on the basis of international law to achieve an equitable solution. However, the absence of a mandatory timeframe under UNCLOS 1982 often causes negotiations to stall for decades, resulting in zones of overlapping claims (undelimited maritime boundaries). This article aims to analyze how the negotiation requirements in UNCLOS 1982 inadvertently trigger a Security Dilemma in maritime law enforcement operations and to explore potential mitigation strategies. Employing a qualitative normative-doctrinal legal research methodology integrated with a Structural Realism perspective, this study examines law enforcement interactions through statutory, conceptual, and case study approaches, specifically focusing on the South China Sea–North Natuna Sea complex and the Ambalat Block. While previous scholarship (e.g., Schofield, 2012; Beckman, 2013) primarily examines maritime disputes through general geopolitical or dispute-settlement frameworks, this article offers a novel contribution by systematically bridging normative-doctrinal legal gaps under UNCLOS 1982 with the operational action-reaction dynamics of civil-paramilitary instruments (Coast Guards) in grey-zone operations. The findings indicate that the lack of formal boundaries leads to a direct clash between mandatory domestic jurisdiction and non-jurisdiction principles. Routine law enforcement operations, especially those utilizing Coast Guard fleets are perceived by opposing states as covert military threats and attempts to establish a fait accompli. This dynamic induces an action-reaction spiral and heightens the risk of accidental confrontation at sea. The article concludes that maximizing Provisional Arrangements pursuant to Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS 1982, reinforced with a robust "without prejudice" clause, is critical to decoupling law enforcement and economic cooperation from underlying sovereignty disputes, thereby maintaining regional maritime stability.