A Vanguard of Foreign Policy over Maritime Claims: Naval Power rather than National Power

Abstract

Most quantitative studies about maritime claims use national power measured by gross indicators, such as the CINC score, to explain disputants’ foreign policy leverage over maritime claims. The basic assumption in using national power to analyze issues over maritime claims is that wealthier, more developed, more populous countries can transfer abundant resources into military potentials, which enables them to have stronger foreign policy leverage over maritime claims. This research does not attempt to deny this assumption. This study, however, argues that based on the inherent advantages of naval power to project power over the sea, naval power measured by the total tonnage of warships is theoretically better and empirically different from national power, and the usage of naval power enhances understanding about disputants’ foreign policy behaviors over maritime claims. Therefore, I conclude that naval power rather than national power is a better and more tailored indicator to explain issues, especially the occurrence of militarized disputes over maritime claims.