Agustina Eugenia Castro

In this third and final policy brief it is intended to conclude with the research work on the strategies of maritime safety and security, highlighting conclusions, final reflections and personal opinions. Recalling that in the first policy brief is established parameters theoretical framework and definitions, and that in the second, we compared five strategies on maritime security throughout the world, I think it is worthwhile to begin this paper by recalling the main ideas previously treated.

In the first place, we take the International Maritime organization (IOM) the definition of “awareness of the maritime domain”, that is to say, “the effective understanding of anything associated with the maritime domain that could impact the security, safety, economy or the environment.” Complementing this conceptualization, we turn to the postulates of an expert in the field, Christian Buergerfor us to just four key areas that make it to safety at sea: the naval power, the protection or safety of the sea, the blue economy and the resilience of human. On the basis of all of this, is developed comparisons of the more recent strategies of maritime security New Zealand (2020), the united States (2020), France (2017), the African Union (2012) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2018).

In the second place, to summarize what has been analyzed, are presented below in the following boxthe development itself. The same relates the four dimensions Buerger's disease (based on the definition of IOM) with the strategies of the selected countries, depending on whether or not there are references to more or less specific to those issues.

	NZ	USA	FR	UA	GB
Marine Environment – Maritime Security	Yes	Not explicitly	Yes	Yes	Yes
Economic Development – Blue Economy	Yes	Not explicitly	Yes	Yes	Not explicitly
International and National security – Naval Power	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Human Security – Resilience	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Now, what can be concluded on the basis of all analyzed? A first impression, and of a more general nature, allows us to recognize that each one of these strategies reveals a great multiplicity of challenges and related tendencies in regard to maritime issues. All of them, in addition to encase a high degree of complexity, transmit sense of urgencyto a greater or lesser extent. That is to say, each country is able to accurately define their priorities and lines of action consequent to act in the “here and now”. Both the objectives and the threats identified in each case seem to be urgent to resolve as soon as possible, but also establish roadmaps clear view of the future, to keep the actions and consolidate the efforts made. 

In all of the strategies are the theme of the resilience of human in the sea and naval power. The first of them is essential for every country as it is of the utmost necessity to ensure the protection of the coastal populations as well as human capital devoted to maritime affairs. The challenges and risks make up long lists in each strategy, as noted in the previous policy brief. The theme of the naval power is also of utmost importance because it is through it that the countries have consolidated their positions, projecting power to the outside and defined set or alliances with other actors.

In general, it can be said that all of the strategies presented actions cooperation every country or union, with their respective allies, international, and emphasizes the need to strengthen those ties. In addition, in each case, the stresses that should be favored different types of institutional relations with actors at sub-national and regional, same with non-state actors, are increasingly important. This last allows us to understand that, in the world today, international relations are not exclusively between States as was the case centuries ago, but are traversed by many stakeholders that are involved each time more, and play a central role, contributing to, or in defiance of the maritime safety and security.

Taken up specifically in the sphere of naval power, the strategy of United States (USA) denotes a great competitiveness with the people's Republic of China (China) and the Russian Federation (Russia), as was discussed earlier. The united states is shown fearful of a potential imbalance of power, which could happen given the impressive development of naval these actors in the last time, in particular China. However, the U.S. should not worry too much, at least for now, because China is still very far from achieving it in this sense, despite its great efforts to develop navalmente leaps and bounds. It can be inferred that the US create an urgent need to ensure your advantage hegemonic in the sea to continue to “writing guidelines” of the (new) international order and, therefore, it is possible a balance of power, alongside China or Russia under any point of view.

In turn, the strategies of French and british a glimpse of samples yearoranza on its hegemony maritime past, when they were maritime powers indiscutidas (especially Great Britain). At present both countries want to return to the center of the scene and ensure that your paper is still relevant and will remain so in the future. In terms of the strategies of New Zealand and the African Unionits scope of action is considerably smaller and thus recognize it. Anyway, while not looking for a power projection maritime dominant international, are engaged in to consolidate itself in their areas respective geographic to achieve the objectives that arise and to ensure their protection.

On the other hand, in almost all the strategies highlights the importance of taking care of the marine environment and, in consequence, are set out specific actions to encourage and seek his protection in every one of the activities. This factor is interesting and is quite new. In the past, the strategies of maritime safety and security is not used to consider the area of the marine environment as a priority, with the occasional exception of historical. It was completely relegated to the national security objectives that seek to be achieved in the seas and oceans, almost regardless of the media used, or the negative impacts that may occur. Today, to my mind, a strategy for maritime security can not let go of the importance of the preservation of the marine environment and should establish specific policies to ensure this, each time more ambitious and with a firmer commitments. Can't forget that all of this is also due to the devastating effects of the climate crisis that is evidenced and suffering around the world, ranked many times as “threats existential” for the large number of countries.

A great dilemma recognized in the strategies is the need to address the challenges, situations of illegality, and other problems that occur on the high seas. International waters comprise the sections of the sea that are not part of the exclusive economic zones, territorial sea, internal waters of a State or waters archipiélagas. As set out in International Law, and specifically in the Law of the Sea, the sea is an area of interest of all the States, which they are forbidden to claim or exercise their sovereignty. However, they can develop, respecting certain parameters, some peaceful actions according to the freedom granted exceptionally, as freedom of navigation, overflight, scientific research and fishing, among others.

Despite the regulations on the high seas given by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, along with other treaties, the reality is that the persistence of conflicts and illegal activities there are at the time of the day. Some of the most recurrent are the illegal fishing and the overexploitation of resources of all kinds, both from ships carrying flag, identified as a national of a State, as from a ship without a flag, which is explicitly punishable. All of this awakens anger, uncertainty, and desires (in certain countries) that there are more regulations. In the best of cases, it is worth to wait for the chance of occurrence of a change in this direction in the years to come.

To finish, I believe it appropriate to give a personal opinion final with respect to all analyzed. After having researched and studied this topic in depth, I recognize the great importance of the diverse and complex maritime issues and of consequential damages security strategies and its comparative study. As we saw, the fact that you have a route map to mark the way for the development of policies in the short, medium and long term is essential, not only to achieve the objectives that would be achieved, but in order to understand the positions taken in the face of challenges and threats. Also, to be able to pose priorities, purposes and final states desired, countries can identify pairs allies that can help in this way, through various actions with joint and international cooperation. Maritime security is a key section within the national security, hence the strategies that manage to be realized for the sea must be framed and be in accordance with what is established in the great umbrella is a national security strategy.

Finally, and in what our country is concerned, I think that Argentina should be able to respond to the challenge develop a very necessary document that expresses a vision for the national security, in all areas and including especially the sea, facing the uncertain future. We have a great interdisciplinary network of experts who can unite efforts to develop a strategy, such as was attempted a few years ago. These tests must be sustained in time and be able to adapt to new circumstances and global trends changing. If you develop a strategy on such a scale is a huge challenge, I think a good first step is to begin by examining what has already been established, by the Argentine in his time and in other countries at the present time, to have a broad perspective of analysis. In this way, the comparative study is essential as a tool of study, for it it is strongly recommended its use and treatment the maximum, in conjunction with other complementary methods that should not be overlooked.