DOCSLIB.ORG

The Navy As a Political Instrument: Freedom of Navigation Operations 1958-2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Navy As a Political Instrument: Freedom of Navigation Operations 1958-2013 The Navy as a Political Instrument: Freedom of Navigation Operations 1958-2013 Michael P. O’Hara Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2016 © 2016 Michael P. O’Hara All rights reserved ABSTRACT The Navy as a Political Instrument: Freedom of Navigation Operations 1958-2013 Michael P. O’Hara Through the Freedom of Navigation Program, established in 1979, the United States exercises diplomatic and military options for disputing maritime claims it judges to be inconsistent with customary international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Yet, despite the United States’ universal commitment to freedom of navigation and the law of the sea, it has behaved inconsistently from 1979-2013. This dissertation examines the variation and asks under what conditions the United States demonstrates its refusal to acquiesce to maritime claims—either by issuing a diplomatic protest or driving a warship through the disputed waters. This dissertation introduces a new dataset of every coastal state in the world over this 34-year period, coding each type of maritime claim made by every coastal state in the world, whether the United States disputes that particular claim, and whether the United States takes some kind of diplomatic or operational action to dispute it. The mixed-method analysis proceeds with a large-n quantitative analysis that sets up a qualitative case study on the Strait of Hormuz. The dissertation begins and concludes with a discussion of current conditions in the South China Sea and the United States activity in this disputed region. This study finds that territorial and usage claims are twice as strongly correlated with operational assertions as a response than diplomatic protests. More specifically, coastal states that require foreign ships to obtain permission prior to entering their territorial sea are most highly correlated with operational assertions. When the United States disputes a maritime claim, military powers and wealthy states are no more likely to receive Freedom of Navigation operations (FONOPS) than others. Moreover, bilateral trade relationships and polity type hardly seem to matter. Similarly, neither the number of ships nor diplomatic representation increases the likelihood of FONOPS. Rather, a coastal state’s possession of nuclear weapons significantly increases the likelihood of receiving an operational assertion—especially if that states has made a declaration upon ratification of UNCLOS. Table of Contents List of Charts, Graphs, and Illustrations iii Acknowledgments v Dedication ix Disclaimer x Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Background: Contemporary Illustration of Freedom of Navigation Operations Question: Explaining Variation in Freedom of Navigation Operations Between the Two Poles of Idealism and Realism Dissertation Plan Chapter 2 OVERVIEW OF THE LAW OF THE SEA 16 UNCLOS: A Sea Change in Maritime Law The Freedom of Navigation Program Law of the Sea: Types of Maritime Claims and Passages Chapter 3 THEORY 47 Customary International Law Understanding State Motivation in Shaping International Law Theoretical Paradigms of Action Chapter 4 DATASET INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 82 Intro Data Coding Procedures Data-Reliability and Concerns about Missing Data Sources Descriptive Statistics Frequency of Combined Protests and Assertions Organizational Explanation Comparison to Existing Datasets Chapter 5 QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS: LARGE-N REGRESSION 124 Intro Method Correlations Regressions Interpretation Interactions Evaluation of Hypotheses Conclusion i Chapter 6 FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION IN THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ 153 Introduction Delegation, Standard Operating Procedure, and Organizational Politics Case Selection Disputed Claims in International Straits: Iran-Oman Conclusion Chapter 7 WHITHER FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION? DEFENDING LAW OR 186 SIGNALING POWER Introduction Commitment Images, and Costs Problems of Signaling on the Cheap Conclusion Bibliography 214 ii List of Charts, Graphs, and Illustrations Figure 2-1 Legal Boundaries of the Ocean and Airspace (from NWP 1-14M) 37 Figure 2-2 Territorial Sea of Islands and Low-Tide Elevations 38 Figure 2-3 Straight Baselines 42 Figure 4-1 Total Coastal States and Disputes per Year, 1958-2013 88 Figure 4-2 Coastal States Claiming Territorial Seas Beyond International Law and 104 Excessive TS Claims and EEZ Restrictions, 1958-2013 Figure 4-3 Total States with Disputed Baseline Claims, 1958-2013 107 Figure 4-4 Total Historic Bay Claims Dispute, 1958-2013 108 Figure 4-5 States with Prior Permission Requirements, 1958-2013 109 Figure 4-6 Total Coastal States and Disputes per Year, 1958-2013 110 Table 4-1 States Whose Claims the United States Disputed 1958 and 2013 111 Figure 4-7 Total Protests and Assertions, 1958-2013 111 Table 4-2 Dependent Variables-Totals 112 Figure 4-8 Warships of U.S. Navy per Year, 1958-2013 116 Figure 4-9 States Receiving Protests and Assertion in Same Year 116 Figure 4-10 Total Protests and Assertions by Continent: 1958-2013 117 Table 5-1 Correlations between Action Taken and Types of Disputed Maritime 129 Claims, 1979-2013 Table 5-2 Correlations between Action Taken and Categories of Disputed Maritime 132 Claims, 1979-2013 Table 5-3 Multivariate Regression Table 139 Table 5-4 Marginal Effects of Interactive Terms 144 iii Table 6-1 EIA Map of Strategic Chokepoints and Petroleum Shipments 161 Figure 6-2 Table of Energy Flows by Strategic Chokepoints, 2009-2013 161 Figure 6-3 Total Assertions Conducted by Country, 1979-2013 164 Figure 6-4 Activity Tracker, Iran and Oman, 1979-2013 167 Figure 6-5 Authority Trends, 1946-2013, Iran and Oman 168 Figure 6-6 Straight Baseline Maps, Oman and Iran 169 Figure 6-7 Unified Command Plan Map 175 Figure 6-8 The Strait of Hormuz 176 Figure 7-1 U.S. Navy’s Show of Force 187 Figure 7-2 Soviet Bumping of U.S. Vessels in the Black Sea, 1988 190 iv Acknowledgments First, I recognize my shipmates who are standing the watch. These women and men are at sea, in the desert, and on watchfloors around the world, sworn to defend the Constitution and working to foster stability and peace. I am grateful for their service and their families’ sacrifice. Thus, it has been a rare privilege to return to graduate school while serving as an active- duty naval officer. For that opportunity, I thank Admirals John Christensen and Phil Wisecup and Captain Russ Knight all at the helm of the Naval War College, who supported my bid, not only to become a Permanent Military Professor, but also to attend a top-tier school like Columbia University. We share a common purpose: to educate our officer corps and to assist in the creation of better strategies for addressing the challenges we and our allies face. They already knew well what I was soon to discover: Columbia University’s program in Political Science, and in International Relations specifically, stood among the best in the world. Further, they recognized the experience at Columbia would prepare me best to contribute to the faculty at the Naval War College. I soon learned why. With an advisor like Bob Jervis and dissertation sponsor like Dick Betts, I experienced the persistent, first-rate intellectual challenge to grow intellectually. Like the best leaders I ever encountered in the fleet, they generously gave their time and attention, provided ever-reliable counsel and mentorship, and led by example by sustaining simultaneously their productivity as scholars and, in the words of John Paul Jones “the nicest sense of personal honor.” With Jack Snyder who patiently helped improve my research plan, these giants fostered an environment of excellence and collegiality. These attributes were shared and emulated by professors like Jonathan Bendor (visiting from Stanford), Tanisha Fazal, Page Fortna, Stuart Gottlieb, Austin Long, Matthew Waxman, and the indispensible Tonya Putnam, whose guidance v was always on target. Professors Tim Frye, Don Green, and Bob Shapiro generously offered comments or advice at various stages, and the support from Kay Achar, Ingrid Gerstmann, and Betty Howe was constant. I would never have arrived in Manhattan were it not for the backing of my Naval War College Professors Tom Culora, John Garofano, Tim Hoyt, John Maurer, and Bill Murray who wrote letters on my behalf along with my Carrier Strike Group Commander, Admiral Kurt Tidd, and Airwing Commanders, “Sterno” Stearney, “Goose” Craig, and “Trigger” Kelley. Professors Rich Flinn, Bob Madison, and Doc White helped me discover and hone a love of teaching. By setting the bar high early, Donald Sprague ensured I was always on my tippy-toes and jumping. My development as a scholar would have been incomplete and this dissertation lopsided were it not for the daily support from my graduate cohortmates at Columbia University. The common workspace on the 7th floor resembled the “ready room” on the carrier where ideas were tested, humility gained, and jargon regularly fined. As I did at sea, I learned as much from peers as from professors, and I stand in awe of the brilliance of friends like Erica Borghard, Seung Cho, Alex Coppock, Lindsay Dolan, Grant Gordon, Chris Kaoutzanis, Trish Kirkland, Summer Lindsey, Erik Lin-Greenberg, Shawn Lonergan, Nick Lotito, Ryan Luby, Sara Moller, Costa Pischedda, Mira Rapp-Hooper, Mike Rubin, Steph Schwartz, Adam Zelizer, and others who provided feedback, listened to ideas, and kept me from going too far astray. My colleagues in the Department of Strategy and Policy provided helpful comments and feedback on my work as they guided me in the first steps of teaching in a PME environment. I am I especially grateful to Andrew Dew, Peter Dutton, Colin Jackson, James Kraska, Tom Mahnken, Dex Wilson, and Toshi Yoshihara. Among these dedicated scholars and professionals, my teaching partner and friend, Charlie Edel, deserves special thanks for his vi support and perspective as a scholar, strategist, teacher, policymaker, and friend.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USS CONSTELLATION Page 4 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 USS CONSTELLATION Page 4 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form Summary The USS Constellation’s career in naval service spanned one hundred years: from commissioning on July 28, 1855 at Norfolk Navy Yard, Virginia to final decommissioning on February 4, 1955 at Boston, Massachusetts. (She was moved to Baltimore, Maryland in the summer of 1955.) During that century this sailing sloop-of-war, sometimes termed a “corvette,” was nationally significant for its ante-bellum service, particularly for its role in the effort to end the foreign slave trade. It is also nationally significant as a major resource in the mid-19th century United States Navy representing a technological turning point in the history of U.S. naval architecture. In addition, the USS Constellation is significant for its Civil War activities, its late 19th century missions, and for its unique contribution to international relations both at the close of the 19th century and during World War II. At one time it was believed that Constellation was a 1797 ship contemporary to the frigate Constitution moored in Boston. This led to a long-standing controversy over the actual identity of the Constellation. Maritime scholars long ago reached consensus that the vessel currently moored in Baltimore is the 1850s U.S. navy sloop-of-war, not the earlier 1797 frigate. Describe Present and Historic Physical Appearance. The USS Constellation, now preserved at Baltimore, Maryland, was built at the navy yard at Norfolk, Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea a Practical Guide
    Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea A Practical Guide Eleanor Freund SPECIAL REPORT JUNE 2017 Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard Kennedy School 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 www.belfercenter.org Publication design and illustrations by Andrew Facini Cover photo: United States. Central Intelligence Agency. The Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands. Scale 1:2,000,000. Washington, D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency, 1992. Copyright 2017, President and Fellows of Harvard College Printed in the United States of America Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea A Practical Guide Eleanor Freund SPECIAL REPORT JUNE 2017 About the Author Eleanor Freund is a Research Assistant at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. She studies U.S. foreign policy and security issues, with a focus on U.S.-China relations. Email: [email protected] Acknowledgments The author is grateful to James Kraska, Howard S. Levie Professor of International Law at the U.S. Naval War College, and Julian Ku, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at Hofstra University School of Law, for their thoughtful comments and feedback on the text of this document. All errors or omissions are the author’s own. ii Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: A Practical Guide Table of Contents What is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)? ..............1 What are maritime features? ......................................................................1 Why is the distinction between different maritime features important? .................................................................................... 4 What are the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, and the exclusive economic zone? ........................................................... 5 What maritime zones do islands, rocks, and low-tide elevations generate? ....................................................................7 What maritime zones do artificially constructed islands generate? ....
    [Show full text]
  • W Inter 20 20
    WINTER 2020 CBMM STAFF PRESIDENT’S OFFICE ▼ OPERATIONS ▼ Kristen L. Greenaway, President, x4955 Steven Byrnes, Vice President of Operations, x4959 Spencer Sherwood, Associate Shipwright, x4967 Kathi Ferguson, Executive Administrative Assistant, x4955 Shannon Mitchell, Guest Experience & Events Manager, x4953 Noah Thomas, Associate Shipwright, x4967 Liz Cowee, Wedding & Events Coordinator, x4944 Clara Zinky, Associate Shipwright, x4967 COMMUNICATIONS ▼ Sara McCafferty, Museum Store Manager, x4963 Moses Dane, Seip Family Foundation Rolando Irizarry, VP of Strategic Communications, x4960 Denise Jones, Assistant Guest Services Manager, x4962 Shipwright Apprentice, x4967 Izzy Mercado, Communications & Art Director, x4943 Josh Atwood, Dockmaster, x4946 William Delano, Shipwright Apprentice, x4967 Bethany Ziegler, Content Marketing Manager, x4995 CHARITY BOAT DONATION PROGRAM Zachary Haroth, Seip Family Foundation Shipwright Apprentice, x4967 ADVANCEMENT ▼ Taylor Williams, Charity Boat Donation Program Director, x4992 Stephen North, Shipwright Apprentice, x4967 Liz LaCorte, Vice President of Advancement, x4956 Tom Shephard, Charity Boat Donation Program Debbie Ruzicka, Advancement Admin. Assistant, x4991 Operations Lead, x4997 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Morgan Whiting, Advancement Admin. Assistant, x4961 Karen Walpole, Charity Boat Donation Program Bryan King, IT Lead, x4999 Administrative Assistant, x4942 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ▼ PRESERVATION & INTERPRETATION ▼ SHIPYARD Bill Baxendale, Grounds & Equipment Manager, x4969 Pete Lesher, Chief Curator,
    [Show full text]
  • Private Political Activists and the International Law Definition of Piracy: Acting for ‘Private Ends’
    Arron N Honniball*1 PRIVATE POLITICAL ACTIVISTS AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW DEFINITION OF PIRACY: ACTING FOR ‘PRIVATE ENDS’ ABSTRACT Piracy under international law grants states the right to exercise universal jurisdiction, provided that all conditions of its definition are cumula- tively met. Yet academic debate continues as to whether the requirement that piratical acts be committed ‘for private ends’ excludes politically motivated non-state actors. This article attempts to resolve the dispute through a thorough analysis of the term ‘private ends’. An application of the rules of treaty interpretation is followed by an in-depth examina- tion of ‘private ends’ historical development. State practice is examined in an attempt to resolve the ambiguities found. Finally the rationale of universal jurisdiction underlying the definition of piracy is explored, in order to answer whether such actors should be excluded. This article argues that a purely political ends exception developed, but its applica- tion beyond insurgents was never resolved. Limited state practice has ensured such ambiguity survived. Nevertheless given the objective of providing discretionary universal jurisdiction over violence and depre- dation between vessels at sea, violent actors should not be excluded solely upon their political motivations. Instead the limited (but growing) precedents of equating ‘private ends’ to a lack of state sanctioning should be followed. * PhD Candidate (UNIJURIS Research Group); Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS); Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law (UCWOSL), Utrecht University. This article is adapted from a thesis submitted at Utrecht University (2013), and kindly awarded The Prof Leo J Bouchez Prize (2013) and The JPA François Prize (2014): Arron N Honniball, Anti-whaling activism in the Southern Ocean and the international law on piracy: An evaluation of the require- ment to act for ‘private ends’ and its applicability to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (Utrecht University, 2013), <http://www.knvir.org/francois-prize/>.
    [Show full text]
  • A „Szőke Tisza” Megmentésének Lehetőségei
    A „SZŐKE TISZA” MEGMENTÉSÉNEK LEHETŐSÉGEI Tájékoztató Szentistványi Istvánnak, a szegedi Városkép- és Környezetvédelmi Bizottság elnökének Összeállította: Dr. Balogh Tamás © 2012.03.27. TIT – Hajózástörténeti, -Modellező és Hagyományőrző Egyesület 2 TÁJÉKOZTATÓ Szentistványi István, a szegedi Városkép- és Környezetvédelmi Bizottság elnöke részére a SZŐKE TISZA II. termesgőzössel kapcsolatban 2012. március 27-én Szentistványi István a szegedi Városkép- és Környezetvédelmi Bizottság elnöke e-mailben kért tájékoztatást Dr. Balogh Tamástól a TIT – Hajózástörténeti, -Modellező és Hagyományőrző Egyesület elnökétől a SZŐKE TISZA II. termesgőzössel kapcsolatban, hogy tájékozódjon a hajó megmentésének lehetőségéről – „akár jelentősebb anyagi ráfordítással, esetleges városi összefogással is”. A megkeresésre az alábbi tájékoztatást adom: A hajó 2012. február 26-án süllyedt el. Azt követően egyesületünk honlapján – egy a hajónak szentelt tematikus aloldalon – rendszeresen tettük közzé a hajóra és a mentésére vonatkozó információkat, képeket, videókat (http://hajosnep.hu/#!/lapok/lap/szoke-tisza-karmentes), amelyekből szinte napi ütemezésben nyomon követhetők a február 26-március 18 között történt események. A honlapon elérhető információkat nem kívánom itt megismételni. Egyebekben a hajó jelentőségéről és az esetleges városi véleménynyilvánítás elősegítésére az alábbiakat tartom szükségesnek kiemelni: I) A hajó jelentősége: Bár a Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Hivatal előtt jelenleg zajlik a hajó örökségi védelembe vételére irányuló eljárás (a hajó örökségi
    [Show full text]
  • K a L E N D E R- B L Ä T T E R
    - Simon Beckert - K A L E N D E R- B L Ä T T E R „Nichts ist so sehr für die „gute alte Zeit“ verantwortlich wie das schlechte Gedächtnis.“ (Anatole France ) Stand: Januar 2016 H I N W E I S E Eckig [umklammerte] Jahresdaten bedeuten, dass der genaue Tag des Ereignisses unbekannt ist. SEITE 2 J A N U A R 1. JANUAR [um 2100 v. Chr.]: Die erste überlieferte große Flottenexpedition der Geschichte findet im Per- sischen Golf unter Führung von König Manishtusu von Akkad gegen ein nicht bekanntes Volk statt. 1908: Der britische Polarforscher Ernest Shackleton verlässt mit dem Schoner Nimrod den Ha- fen Lyttelton (Neuseeland), um mit einer Expedition den magnetischen Südpol zu erkunden (Nimrod-Expedition). 1915: Die HMS Formidable wird in einem Nachtangriff durch das deutsche U-Boot SM U 24 im Ärmelkanal versenkt. Sie ist das erste britische Linienschiff, welches im Ersten Weltkrieg durch Feindeinwirkung verloren geht. 1917: Das deutsche U-Boot SM UB 47 versenkt den britischen Truppentransporter HMT In- vernia etwa 58 Seemeilen südöstlich von Kap Matapan. 1943: Der amerikanische Frachter Arthur Middleton wird vor dem Hafen von Casablanca von dem deutschen U-Boot U 73 durch zwei Torpedos getroffen. Das zu einem Konvoi gehörende Schiff ist mit Munition und Sprengstoff beladen und versinkt innerhalb einer Minute nach einer Explosion der Ladung. 1995: Die automatische Wellenmessanlage der norwegischen Ölbohrplattform Draupner-E meldet in einem Sturm eine Welle mit einer Höhe von 26 Metern. Damit wurde die Existenz von Monsterwellen erstmals eindeutig wissenschaftlich bewiesen. —————————————————————————————————— 2. JANUAR [um 1990 v. Chr.]: Der ägyptische Pharao Amenemhet I.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States, China, and Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 13 Issue 3 The Legal Challenges of Globalization: A View from the Heartland (Symposium Edition) 2014 The United States, China, and Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea James W. Houck Penn State University Nicole M. Anderson Penn State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Admiralty Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Law of the Sea Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation James W. Houck and Nicole M. Anderson, The United States, China, and Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea, 13 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 441 (2014), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol13/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UNITED STATES, CHINA, AND FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA JAMES W. HOUCK NICOLE M. ANDERSON INTRODUCTION The need for a uniform understanding of international norms regarding freedom of navigation is increasingly important as more States develop capacity to act in the international maritime realm.1 Nowhere is the issue of freedom of navigation more contentious, with more potential to spark wider conflict, than in the South China Sea (SCS).
    [Show full text]
  • UK Maritime Power
    Joint Doctrine Publication 0-10 UK Maritime Power Fifth Edition Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre Joint Doctrine Publication 0-10 UK Maritime Power Joint Doctrine Publication 0-10 (JDP 0-10) (5th Edition), dated October 2017, is promulgated as directed by the Chiefs of Staff Director Concepts and Doctrine Conditions of release 1. This information is Crown copyright. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) exclusively owns the intellectual property rights for this publication. You are not to forward, reprint, copy, distribute, reproduce, store in a retrieval system, or transmit its information outside the MOD without VCDS’ permission. 2. This information may be subject to privately owned rights. i Authorisation The Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) is responsible for publishing strategic trends, joint concepts and doctrine. If you wish to quote our publications as reference material in other work, you should confirm with our editors whether the particular publication and amendment state remains authoritative. We welcome your comments on factual accuracy or amendment proposals. Please send them to: The Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre Ministry of Defence Shrivenham SWINDON Wiltshire SN6 8RF Telephone: 01793 31 4216/4217/4220 Military network: 96161 4216/4217/4220 E-mail: [email protected] All images, or otherwise stated are: © Crown copyright/MOD 2017. Distribution Distributing Joint Doctrine Publication (JDP) 0-10 (5th Edition) is managed by the Forms and Publications Section, LCSLS Headquarters and Operations Centre, C16 Site, Ploughley Road, Arncott, Bicester, OX25 1LP. All of our other publications, including a regularly updated DCDC Publications Disk, can also be demanded from the LCSLS Operations Centre.
    [Show full text]
  • Brochure Design by Communication Design, Inc., Richmond, VA 8267 Main Street Destinations Like Chestertown, Port Deposit, Bel Air, Ellicott City, WASHINGTON, D.C
    BALTIMOREST. P . R ESI . Druid Hill Park . 1 . D UL ST . E ST NT PENNSYLV ANIA PA WATER ST. ARD ST S VERT ST AW T 25 45 147 . EUT SAINT HOW HOPKINS PL LOMBARD ST. CHARLES ST CAL SOUTH ST MARKET PL M ASON AND DIXON LINE S . 83 U Y ST 273 PRATTST. COMMERCE ST GA S NORTH AVE. 1 Q Emmitsburg Greenmount 45 ST. U Cemetery FAWN E 1 H . T S A T H EASTERN AVE. N G USS Constellation I Union Mills L N SHARP ST CONWAYST. A Manchester R Taneytown FLEET ST. AY I Washington Monument/ Camden INNER V 1 E Mt. Vernon Place 97 30 25 95 Station R MONUMENT ST. BROADW HARBOR President Maryland . Street 27 Station LANCASTER ST. Historical Society . ORLEANS ST. ERT ST T . S Y 222 40 LV A Thurmont G Church Home CA Susquehanna Mt. Clare and Hospital KEY HWY Battle Monument 140 BALTIMORE RIOT TRAIL State Park Port Deposit ELKTON Mansion BALTIMORE ST. CHARLES ST (1.6-mile walking tour) 7 LOMBARD ST. Federal Hill James Archer L 77 Birthplace A PRATT ST. Middleburg Patterson P I Old Frederick Road D 40 R Park 138 U M (Loy’s Station) . EASTERN AVE. E R CONWAY ST. D V Mt. Clare Station/ B 137 Hereford CECIL RD ST USS O T. S I VE. FLEET ST. T 84 24 1 A B&O Railroad Museum WA O K TS RIC Constellation Union Bridge N R DE Catoctin S Abbott F 7 E HO FR T. WESTMINSTER A 155 L Monkton Station Furnance LIGH Iron Works L T (Multiple Trail Sites) S 155 RD 327 462 S 31 BUS A Y M 1 Federal O R A E K I Havre de Grace Rodgers R Hill N R S D T 22 Tavern Perryville E 395 BALTIMORE HARFORD H V K E Community Park T I Y 75 Lewistown H New Windsor W Bel Air Court House R R Y 140 30 25 45 146 SUSQUEHANNA O K N BUS FLATS L F 1 OR ABERDEEN E T A VE.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2009 ICS Ad-8.5X11-Alabama 3/10/09 1:24 PM Page 1
    THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE A L A B A M A OF THE ALABAMA STATE PORT AUTHORITY SEAPORT MarCH 2009 ICS ad-8.5x11-Alabama 3/10/09 1:24 PM Page 1 Alabama Seaport PuBlishED continuOuSly since 1927 • marCh 2009 On The Cover: an aerial view of the progress of the Pinto Island Steel Terminal shot march 2. governor Bob riley and representatives from Thyssenkrupp Steel toured the facility in February. 4 8 Alabama State Port Authority P.O. Box 1588, Mobile, Alabama 36633, USA Contents P: 251.441.7200 • F: 251.441.7216 • asdd.com alabama governor Surveys Progress at new Pinto Island Terminal ........4 James K. Lyons, Director, CEO Larry R. Downs, Secretary-Treasurer/CFO Flanagan Steps up as Interim Port Police Chief .........................................7 EXECutiVE a global Investment in mobile and the Port: PErsonnEl Charles F. Sleeman, Manager P: 251.441.7209 Introducing global Stainless Steel Corporation ............................................8 FinanCial SerVICes hispanic-american association Seeks to Strengthen Community .........10 Larry Downs, Secretary/Treasurer 251.441.7050 Linda K. Paaymans, Vice President 251.441.7036 Port Calls: alabama Coastal Birding Trail ................................................. 12 COmptrOllEr Pete Dranka 251.441.7057 Information TechnOlOgy Stan Hurston, Manager 251.441.7017 at the helm: austal uSa ................................................................................16 human Resources Danny Barnett, Manager 251.441.7004 made in alabama: alabama river Pulp marks 30 years of Operation ......18 Risk
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Defense Report to Congress Annual Freedom of Navigation Report
    Department of Defense Report to Congress Annual Freedom of Navigation Report Fiscal Year 2018 Pursuant to Section 1275 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 The estimated cost of report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $13,000 in Fiscal Years 2018–2019. This includes $50 in expenses and $13,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2019Feb28 RefID: 9-B8DA2AD December 31, 2018 Background: Throughout its history, the United States has asserted a key national interest in preserving the freedom of the seas, often calling on its military forces to protect that interest. Following independence, one of the U.S. Navy’s first missions was to defend U.S. commercial vessels in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea from pirates and other maritime threats. The United States went to war in 1812, in part, to defend its citizens’ rights to commerce on the seas. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson named “absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas” as one of the universal principles for which the United States and other nations were fighting World War I. Similarly, before World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt declared that our military forces had a “duty of maintaining the American policy of freedom of the seas.” The United States’ interest in the freedom of the seas extends beyond safeguarding vessels from the physical threats posed by pirates and submarines. Excessive maritime claims are attempts by coastal States to unlawfully restrict the freedoms of navigation and overflight and other lawful uses of the sea. Excessive maritime claims are made through laws, regulations, or other pronouncements that are inconsistent with international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Black Sea and the Turkish Straits: Resurgent Strategic Importance in the 21St Century
    The Black Sea and the Turkish Straits: Resurgent Strategic Importance in the 21st Century THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Andrew M. Hascher Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Studies The Ohio State University 2019 Master’s Examination Committee Angela Brintlinger, PhD, Advisor Yana Hashamova, PhD Rudy Hightower, PhD Copyrighted by Andrew M. Hascher 2019 Abstract The Black Sea and the Turkish Straits have played an important geopolitical role in the world since the time of antiquity, despite the Black Sea being a geographically closed body of water. The objective of this paper is to articulate the importance of the Black Sea region as a source of geopolitical power, both historically and moving into the future. Of particular importance are the power dynamics between the Russian Federation, Turkey and the West. This paper reviews the history of the region and the major treaties over time which attempted to answer the “Straits Question” of access to and from the Black Sea via the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits. Then analysis of the current geopolitical situation and a projection for the future of the region is offered based on the research. Analysis of the history and diplomacy of the area shows that the major actors continue to place a great deal of strategic importance on their territorial claims, military position and economic standing in the Black Sea region. The evidence shows that the Russians place an enormous level of importance on the Black Sea as it holds their only viable warm water ports.
    [Show full text]