Abstract
Abstract Two main conclusions were reached by Admiral Hill in a recent article in this journal: first, that Latin American ocean policies have been resource oriented, with little underlying conflict with U.S. ocean security interests; and, second, that the U.S. law of the sea position has been responsible for an unnecessary sacrifice of U.S. ocean security interests, since grounds for accommodation between Latin American resource interests and U.S. military interests have clearly existed but were not seized. Both conclusions are refuted by showing that Latin American ocean policies cannot easily be reconciled with U.S. ocean security interests, at least as presently defined, and that the U.S. law of the sea position hence did not sacrifice U.S. ocean security interests and indeed often responded prudently to an adverse external environment. An alternative perspective on U.S. ocean security interests and Latin American ocean policies is developed on the basis of these findings. On the negative side, neithe...
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call