Governing disputed maritime areas through marine spatial planning: legal foundations, comparative practice and pathways forward
This article argues that while the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not explicitly regulate marine spatial planning (MSP), its provisions provide a legal basis for using MSP to facilitate cooperation, manage resources, and protect the environment in disputed maritime areas, provided that coastal states adopt neutral, non-prejudicial, and collaborative approaches to avoid entrenching existing conflicts.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
The ocean is a crowded space where nature and human ambition constantly collide. Fishermen chase schools that swim across invisible lines, oil companies drill for energy that lies beneath shifting seabeds, and shipping lanes cut through fragile coral reefs. When two or more countries claim the same stretch of water, this crowding becomes a legal and environmental crisis. The rules that usually govern these waters, known as the Law of the Sea, often stall when boundaries are disputed, leaving a vacuum where resources are overfished and ecosystems degrade. In these gray zones, a new tool is emerging: marine spatial planning. Think of it as a city planner's map for the sea, a method used to decide where ships, wind farms, and nature reserves can go without stepping on each other's toes. The challenge is that drawing such a map in a disputed area can look like a country is trying to claim the land for itself, turning a technical exercise into a political weapon.
A team of researchers from the Ocean University of China, Rui Chen and Yue Dong, set out to understand how this planning tool can be used in these contested waters without making the disputes worse. They did not conduct new experiments in the lab or dive into the ocean themselves. Instead, they performed a deep dive into existing laws, court rulings, and real-world examples from around the globe. They examined how countries in the Mediterranean, the Baltic Sea, and the South China Sea have tried to organize their waters while arguing over who owns them. Their work reveals that while marine spatial planning cannot solve the argument over who owns the water, it can serve as a neutral bridge. It allows nations to manage pollution, protect fish stocks, and coordinate shipping even while the final boundary remains undecided, provided they follow strict rules of cooperation and transparency.
The researchers found that the ocean is facing a perfect storm of pressure. As land resources become scarcer, countries are turning to the sea for food, energy, and minerals. At the same time, the climate is warming and acidifying the water, making marine life more vulnerable. In areas where countries disagree on who has the right to manage the water, these problems get worse because no single authority is in charge. One country might protect a reef while its neighbor drills for oil nearby, or one might overfish a stock that the other is trying to save. The researchers noted that the international law governing the oceans, specifically a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, does not explicitly mention marine spatial planning. However, the treaty does contain general rules about cooperation and protecting the environment that can be used to justify these plans. The authors argue that these plans can be framed not as a claim of ownership, but as a practical way to keep the peace and protect nature while the legal arguments continue.
To test this idea, the authors looked at how different regions have handled the situation. In the Mediterranean Sea, the approach has been mixed. Greece and Turkey, two neighbors with long-standing disputes, both created their own marine plans. Greece framed its plan as a requirement to follow European Union laws, while Turkey used its plan to highlight its own maritime claims. Because they did not talk to each other beforehand, their conservation zones ended up clashing, turning environmental protection into a diplomatic fight. In contrast, Slovenia and Croatia, who also have a border dispute, managed to create their plans together. They followed strict rules to consult each other before drawing any lines. This process did not solve their border problem, but it prevented their planning decisions from becoming new points of conflict. Similarly, in the Baltic Sea, Denmark and Poland used planning talks as a way to build trust before they eventually signed a formal boundary agreement. These examples showed that the method matters just as much as the map itself.
The study also looked at the South China Sea, a region with some of the world's most complex overlapping claims. Here, countries have mostly acted alone, creating national plans that include disputed islands and waters. While these plans help countries organize their own activities, the lack of communication means they often look like attempts to solidify ownership. The researchers pointed out that there are some successful examples of cooperation in the region, such as joint seismic surveys and shared data on fish stocks, but these have been rare and sometimes legally challenged. The authors suggest that the key to making planning work in such a tense environment is to keep the plans "without prejudice." This is a legal phrase meaning that the plan does not change the legal rights of any country. It is a way of saying, "We are organizing the traffic and protecting the fish, but we are not deciding who owns the road."
The authors propose a clear path forward for countries stuck in these disputes. First, any plan must include a clear statement that it does not settle the boundary or change who owns the water. Second, countries should focus on functional cooperation, starting with areas where they share common interests, such as cleaning up pollution or monitoring fish populations. These are low-stakes activities that can build trust before tackling harder issues like oil drilling or exclusive fishing rights. Third, the process must be open and transparent. Countries should share their data, consult with their neighbors early, and involve local communities who rely on the sea. By following these steps, marine spatial planning can become a tool for risk management rather than a tool for conflict. It allows nations to manage the ocean as a shared system, even when they cannot agree on the lines that divide it.
Ultimately, the research concludes that marine spatial planning is not a magic solution that will erase border disputes. It cannot decide who owns a piece of the ocean, nor can it replace the need for a final legal agreement. However, it offers a practical way to stop the ocean from falling apart while the lawyers and politicians do their work. By treating the sea as a shared space that needs management, rather than a prize to be won, countries can reduce the risk of accidents, protect fragile ecosystems, and keep the door open for future cooperation. The study suggests that if nations are willing to separate the act of planning from the act of claiming, they can turn these disputed waters from zones of tension into zones of shared responsibility.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.