Mare interpretatum : continuity and evolution in States' interpretations of the Law of the Sea

Disagreements over how to interpret the international law of the sea have caused contention among the United States, China, and other Asian nations as the regional balance of power has shifted in recent decades. This dissertation examines the sources of those disagreements, investigating why states favor mare liberum ("the free sea"), claiming limited jurisdiction over the oceans, or mare clausum ("the closed sea"), claiming expansive authority at sea, and how their interpretations change over time. I argue that countries interpret the law of the sea in ways that serve their strategic interests, treating the ocean as neither mare liberum nor mare clausum, but instead mare interpretatum. In their legal interpretations, states balance their interests in protecting against perceived threats along their own coasts with their interests in conducting operations near other states' coasts, while also seeking legitimacy in the international community.

Name thesis:degree_name

Doctoral

Department dc:contributor.department

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Political Science

Grantor dc:publisher

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Year dc:date.issued

2020

Author dc:creator

• Odell, Rachel Esplin.

Advisor dc:contributor.advisor

• M. Taylor Fravel.

• Political Science.

Statement dc:rights

• MIT theses may be protected by copyright. Please reuse MIT thesis content according to the MIT Libraries Permissions Policy, which is available through the URL provided.

Licence dc:rights.uri

• http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582

Language dc:language.iso

eng

Handle dc:identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130597

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/130597