In 2023, the United States made a bold claim—nearly one million extra square kilometers of ocean floor, a significant extension of their maritime territory. This claim, not driven by war or natural events, stems from a redefinition of their extended continental shelf (ECS). The new territories are now under scrutiny, as Washington seeks international recognition. But to make this claim a reality, the US must provide solid scientific evidence and navigate a complex web of international law.
A Maritime Expansion Twice the Size of Spain
The recent announcement by the US government reveals an impressive extension of its maritime boundaries. The country is now claiming an additional one million square kilometers of oceanic territory, spread across multiple regions, including the Arctic, the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Bering Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico. This expansion is roughly double the size of Spain or half the size of Alaska—no small feat.
The extension isn’t the result of territorial conquest but rather a legal and scientific process. Washington believes that these underwater regions, which sit just off its coasts, meet the criteria for inclusion within its sovereign space. This claim is grounded in decades of research carried out by institutions like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
While the announcement is groundbreaking, it’s important to remember that, as noted by Mead Treadwell, former lieutenant governor of Alaska and polar issues expert, the US’ territorial increase is more of a redefinition rather than a land grab. It’s a far cry from the dramatic historical acquisitions like the Louisiana Purchase or the Alaska Purchase, yet the strategic implications are still vast. If recognized, this extension would open up opportunities for resource exploration, including the extraction of natural resources and control over vital maritime routes.
Legal Hurdles: A Battle for International Recognition
However, there’s a significant obstacle to the official recognition of this new maritime territory: international law. Specifically, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which governs such claims, requires nations to provide extensive scientific evidence of their territorial boundaries. Herein lies the complication for the United States: while 168 countries and the European Union have ratified UNCLOS, the US has yet to do so. This means that Washington cannot directly access the treaty framework for resolving maritime claims.
The situation places the United States in a unique position, where it must persuade the international community of its claim’s legitimacy despite not being a signatory to the treaty. This political gap could limit the extent to which the US ECS is recognized and accepted globally.
Additionally, territorial disputes over oceanic borders are rarely peaceful. For example, China has been embroiled in intense diplomatic conflicts over the South China Sea, with neighboring countries like the Philippines and Vietnam contesting its claims. By extending its maritime borders, the United States may be setting off a chain reaction, prompting other nations to make similar claims or challenge the legitimacy of the US’ expansion.
The Strategic and Economic Implications
If the United States successfully validates this maritime claim, the economic possibilities could be significant. The newly claimed territories may be rich in submarine resources, from hydrocarbons to rare minerals, which could give the US a distinct advantage in the global economy. Additionally, the control of new navigation routes could enhance strategic maritime power, strengthening America’s geopolitical position.
However, not everyone is celebrating this move. Environmentalists have voiced concerns about the potential ecological impact. Increased human activity in fragile marine ecosystems could lead to long-term damage. The exploitation of resources in these newly claimed territories could threaten biodiversity and the health of oceans that are already under strain from climate change and overfishing.
As natural resources become scarcer and more valuable, this development may encourage other nations to follow suit, seeking their own extensions of maritime territory. How the international community reacts to these moves will play a significant role in shaping the future of global ocean governance. If this claim is accepted, it could mark the beginning of a new chapter in how countries manage and contest oceanic territories.
The US’ push to extend its maritime borders could be a game-changer in global geopolitics, but first, it must back up its claim with solid evidence and navigate the tricky waters of international law. Whether this bold move leads to a new era of resource control or triggers more geopolitical conflicts remains to be seen. As the situation develops, all eyes will be on how this claim unfolds on the world stage.
