Geography
How Geopolitical Rivalries Shape Exclusive Economic Zone Claims
Quick fact
Interestingly, the size of an EEZ can significantly amplify a small island nation's maritime claims. For instance, France's EEZ is the largest in the world due to overseas territories, highlighting how geography influences geopolitical leverage.
Why this is interesting
In the South China Sea, a single underwater rock can trigger naval standoffs between world powers. Why do seemingly insignificant islands cause such fierce international conflict?
Read the full explanation
Understanding How Geopolitical Rivalries Shape Exclusive Economic Zone Claims
An Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a sea area up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state's baseline. Within this zone, the state has special rights to explore and use marine resources, such as fish and oil, but does not own the water or airspace. Geopolitical rivalries intensify EEZ claims because these zones contain valuable resources and strategic shipping lanes. When two or more countries assert overlapping EEZ claims, tensions rise. Rivals may bolster their claims by building artificial islands, stationing military vessels, or flexing naval power. For example, China's 'nine-dash line' overlaps with EEZs of several Southeast Asian nations, leading to frequent confrontations over fishing and oil exploration rights.
A deeper explanation
The mechanism behind how geopolitical rivalries shape EEZ claims lies in the interplay of international law, resource scarcity, and strategic interests. UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) provides a legal basis for EEZs, but it has ambiguities, especially regarding the classification of islands versus rocks (islands can generate more extensive continental shelf claims). Rivals exploit these ambiguities to argue for opportunistic claims. Additionally, EEZs give coastal states jurisdiction over natural resources, which translates to economic and military advantage. In a rivalry, controlling an EEZ means denying those resources to adversaries. This leads to 'lawfare'—using legal arguments to claim de facto control—while simultaneously backing up those claims with military presence. The result is a strategic push and pull: one country strengthens its claim, the other responds with its own actions, escalating tension.