The world’s oceans form the backbone of global stability, economically, digitally and in terms of security policy. Over 90 percent of global trade, as well as large parts of Europe’s energy and data flows, rely on maritime routes. In the context of global power shifts toward a multipolar order, these vital arteries are coming under increasing pressure. At sea, the tension between power and law becomes particularly visible. Authoritarian powers such as Russia and China deliberately circumvent international law, operate with hybrid means and strategically exploit legal grey zones. This systematic use of lawfare threatens not only the rules-based order but also Europe’s interests. The Baltic Sea and the South China Sea exemplify this dynamic. As geopolitical hotspots, they highlight different dimensions of maritime influence below the threshold of open escalation.
In the Baltic Sea, Europe’s immediate vulnerability becomes evident. Since the beginning of Russia’s war of aggression, sabotage incidents, espionage cases and suspicious manoeuvres near critical maritime infrastructure have multiplied. Subsea cables, pipelines and power connections are especially exposed. Despite existing alliances, protection remains inconsistent and legal responsibility unclear. Russia in particular increasingly operates covertly through so-called shadow fleets. The Baltic Sea has therefore become a testing ground for hybrid warfare with unpredictable consequences for European security and stability.
At the same time, a strategic precedent is emerging in the South China Sea. China reinterprets international legal norms, constructs artificial islands and asserts its claims through permanent presence and paramilitary militias. The legal substance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is being deliberately undermined with global implications. Although Europe is barely present in security terms, the consequences of these developments directly affect its interests, including stable supply chains, free sea lanes and legal certainty in international relations.
Both cases expose structural weaknesses in existing maritime law. The enforceability of UNCLOS remains limited, primarily due to geopolitical power asymmetries. Conceptual gaps are also becoming evident. The treaty was not designed to address hybrid threats or targeted attacks on critical maritime infrastructure. This creates a strategic grey zone in which rule violations carry no consequences and may, through repetition, gradually become accepted practice under international law.
Europe is increasingly confronted with the task of understanding maritime security as an integral part of its strategic stability. The targeted undermining of maritime law by authoritarian actors affects not only global trade routes but also has the potential to deepen domestic tensions through economic insecurity, disinformation and the instrumentalization of societal uncertainty. As maritime order deteriorates, legal sovereignty and political cohesion also come under pressure. In an environment of growing global tensions, the question of how Europe can act more independently in matters of security policy is becoming more urgent. Maritime security is therefore not a peripheral issue but a key test of Europe’s ability to act strategically.
Read the entire analysis: „Machtspiele auf See – Wenn Seerecht erodiert: Ostsee, Südchinesisches Meer und Europas sicherheitspolitische Verwundbarkeit“ here as PDF. Please note, to date the analysis is only available in German.
