forbes.com
Undersea Cable Severings Highlight Gaps in International Law
Six undersea cables in the Baltic Sea and Taiwan Strait have been severed since November, with ships linked to Russia and China suspected; NATO's delayed response highlights weaknesses in international law.
- How are Russia and China exploiting gaps in international law to achieve geopolitical aims through the targeting of undersea cables?
- The incidents demonstrate Russia and China's exploitation of legal ambiguities surrounding undersea cable protection. The lack of clear jurisdiction beyond territorial waters, coupled with the use of 'flags of convenience', hinders effective investigation and prosecution. This strategy, known as 'lawfare', allows them to test the response capabilities of law-abiding states.
- What are the immediate geopolitical and economic consequences of the recent undersea cable severing incidents in the Baltic Sea and Taiwan Strait?
- Since November, six undersea cables in the Baltic Sea and Taiwan Strait have been severed, with vessels linked to Russia and China suspected in all incidents. NATO's delayed response highlights vulnerabilities in international law and the need for improved coordination among affected states. This underscores the geopolitical and economic risks of such actions.
- What proactive legal and military measures should NATO member states and Taiwan implement to counter future attacks on undersea cables and prevent further escalation?
- The ongoing cable severing incidents may escalate tensions and necessitate a re-evaluation of international legal frameworks governing undersea cable protection. Proactive measures, including enhanced legal frameworks and improved coordination among NATO and Taiwan, are crucial to deter future attacks and mitigate the economic and geopolitical impacts.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the aggressive actions of Russia and China, portraying them as deliberately undermining global infrastructure. The headline and introduction immediately set this tone, focusing on the intentional nature of the cable cuts. While there is mention of accidental damage, the overall narrative strongly suggests malicious intent. This framing could influence the reader to view the incidents primarily as deliberate acts of aggression, potentially overshadowing alternative explanations.
Language Bias
The article uses strong language such as "severed," "suspected," and "provocations," which frame Russia and China's actions negatively. While these words are not inherently biased, their repeated use and the overall tone contribute to a negative portrayal. More neutral terms such as "damaged," "allegedly involved," and "incidents" could provide a more balanced perspective.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the incidents of cable cutting and the legal ambiguities surrounding them, but it could benefit from including perspectives from private companies that own and maintain the cables, as well as insurance companies involved in covering such damages. Information on the economic impact of these incidents on the affected regions or globally would also add valuable context. Additionally, exploring potential non-state actors involved in such activities could provide a more comprehensive picture.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a clear dichotomy between law-abiding states and the actions of Russia and China, which are portrayed as intentionally exploiting legal gaps. While this framing highlights a crucial issue, it simplifies a complex geopolitical situation and might overlook other motivations or actors involved in similar incidents.
Sustainable Development Goals
The deliberate severing of submarine cables negatively impacts global internet connectivity and economic stability, disrupting infrastructure crucial for international trade and communication. This directly undermines SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) which aims to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.