U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s Post

Hargeisa, July 24th, 2024 - The Government of the Republic of Somaliland vehemently rejects any potential deployment of Turkish naval forces within Somaliland’s recognized maritime zones. These zones are delineated clearly under international law and are essential to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Somaliland. #SomalilandMFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Somaliland

Happy to announce that I have completed my Master's Degree in International Relations related to International Conflict, Strategic Studies and Foreign Policy Analysis. Through the support of Professor M. Bartoli and the NATO practitioners who guided me on this path I had the opportunity to write a practical pre-deployment guide in preparation for boots on the ground focusing on aspects of international humanitarian law and issues that may affect military missions. #InternationalHumanitarianLaw #CIMIC

OPINION: "The Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) program run by the US Department of Defense has become a symbol of China-US naval competition and of the West’s advocacy for a rules-based order. Operational assertions are thrust into the limelight whenever China responds to one. And barely any US statement goes by without reference to freedom of navigation and global norms. "That’s a problem. FONOPs were only ever meant to uphold narrow principles with select audiences in mind. Those principles uphold the right of all navies to operate in the world’s waters unimpeded. "A core audience since the program was established in 1979 has been foreign governments that may dispute the US stance on those rights but at least had context for the debate. To them, FONOPs are often an irritation, not a serious problem. "But that audience has expanded. Commentators, journalists, and officials have more reason to monitor maritime developments because they’re so central to Indo‑Pacific security. They might not have expertise in arcane aspects of international law, but their voices matter deeply in shaping their country’s attitude to the United States – especially in democracies. "Some of them will view FONOPs through an intuitive rather than legal lens. Warships can be imposing. Sailing close by uninvited can appear like attempted intimidation – especially if histories of colonialism and gunboat diplomacy are at play. "FONOPs are easily perceived as the antithesis of the rules-based order that America seeks to uphold, muddying the distinction between its behaviour and China’s." Full article link in comments.

OPINION: "The Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) program run by the US Department of Defense has become a symbol of China-US naval competition and of the West’s advocacy for a rules-based order. Operational assertions are thrust into the limelight whenever China responds to one. And barely any US statement goes by without reference to freedom of navigation and global norms. "That’s a problem. FONOPs were only ever meant to uphold narrow principles with select audiences in mind. Those principles uphold the right of all navies to operate in the world’s waters unimpeded. "A core audience since the program was established in 1979 has been foreign governments that may dispute the US stance on those rights but at least had context for the debate. To them, FONOPs are often an irritation, not a serious problem. "But that audience has expanded. Commentators, journalists, and officials have more reason to monitor maritime developments because they’re so central to Indo‑Pacific security. They might not have expertise in arcane aspects of international law, but their voices matter deeply in shaping their country’s attitude to the United States – especially in democracies. "Some of them will view FONOPs through an intuitive rather than legal lens. Warships can be imposing. Sailing close by uninvited can appear like attempted intimidation – especially if histories of colonialism and gunboat diplomacy are at play. "FONOPs are easily perceived as the antithesis of the rules-based order that America seeks to uphold, muddying the distinction between its behaviour and China’s." Full article link in comments.

OPINION: "The Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) program run by the US Department of Defense has become a symbol of China-US naval competition and of the West’s advocacy for a rules-based order. Operational assertions are thrust into the limelight whenever China responds to one. And barely any US statement goes by without reference to freedom of navigation and global norms. "That’s a problem. FONOPs were only ever meant to uphold narrow principles with select audiences in mind. Those principles uphold the right of all navies to operate in the world’s waters unimpeded. "A core audience since the program was established in 1979 has been foreign governments that may dispute the US stance on those rights but at least had context for the debate. To them, FONOPs are often an irritation, not a serious problem. "But that audience has expanded. Commentators, journalists, and officials have more reason to monitor maritime developments because they’re so central to Indo‑Pacific security. They might not have expertise in arcane aspects of international law, but their voices matter deeply in shaping their country’s attitude to the United States – especially in democracies. "Some of them will view FONOPs through an intuitive rather than legal lens. Warships can be imposing. Sailing close by uninvited can appear like attempted intimidation – especially if histories of colonialism and gunboat diplomacy are at play. "FONOPs are easily perceived as the antithesis of the rules-based order that America seeks to uphold, muddying the distinction between its behaviour and China’s." Full article link in comments.

Legitimacy Through Force: Israel's military successes have allowed it to consolidate control over territories that are disputed under international law, such as the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This situation raises questions about the legitimacy of sovereignty acquired through military conquest. While Israel maintains that its sovereignty is legitimate due to its victories and subsequent governance, critics argue that such claims violate the principles of international law, which prohibits the acquisition of territory by force.

Recognizing the Indo-Pacific's significance in contemporary geopolitical and security realms, the European Union has bolstered its presence in the region. Emphasizing naval strategies, the EU aims to safeguard trade and uphold international law. This guest paper authored by Nicolas Blarel and Niels van Willigen highlights how the EU's naval operations and initiatives like the Coordinated Maritime Presence signal its aspiration to serve as a global maritime security provider. Ensuring credibility in these endeavors, especially in the Eastern Indo-Pacific, is paramount for effectiveness. The paper concludes with policy recommendations to enhance the EU's signaling for more impactful engagement. This brief is part of a series titled “What the Indo-Pacific means to Europe,” edited by HCSS analysts Paul van Hooft and Benedetta Girardi, with contributions from Alisa Hoenig. https://lnkd.in/ewPHSVJa

As countries like Finland and Sweden shift away from neutrality to join NATO, the war has prompted a reevaluation of neutrality's relevance within European security. Mostly known as a political concept, this article explores the legal principle of neutrality in the context of the Ukrainian-Russian war, where military aid from numerous states has sparked debate on the boundaries of neutrality in modern conflicts. 🇺🇦🛡️ The narrow legal framework of neutrality highlights the ambivalence of the legal obligations of neutral states where abstention from supporting belligerents and help to a state defending against aggression coexist. Therefore, the rigidity of traditional neutrality law appears to be challenged by the ongoing war shifting towards more flexible interpretations in the face of collective security threats. Consequently, the need to adapt the legal doctrine in the rapidly changing landscape of international law and warfare underlines the obsolescence of the concept.🌍⚖️ ✏️This article was written by Morgane Denieul, supervised by Belén Padrón Salinas, and edited by Conley Austin. 🔗: https://lnkd.in/eerBKZja #NeutralityInConflict #InternationalLaw #UkraineCrisis #LegalFramework #Geopolitics #MilitaryAid #GlobalSecurity

Recently published policy paper by institute members Nicolas Blarel and Niels van Willigen at HCSS - The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies: 'Strategic Communication in the Indo-Pacific: Signalling EU Naval Commitment to the Region'. The European Union now regards the Indo-Pacific as being at the centre of contemporary geopolitical and security challenges. This has led to an increasing European presence in the region aimed, amongst others, at the protection of trade and the maintenance of international law. With a focus on naval strategy, this paper outlines how the EU’s policies towards the Indo-Pacific are an instance of foreign policy signalling. The EU’s three naval operations as well as the Coordinated Maritime Presence have so far signalled the bloc’s objective to be a global maritime security provider. For this to be effective, the EU must ensure the credibility of its activities. The paper analyses how this can be achieved, including in the Eastern part of the Indo-Pacific. It ends with policy recommendations for more effective signalling. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/ewPHSVJa