| This dissertation examines the United States' Freedom of Navigation program. This program involves the use of aircraft and, especially, Navy ships to challenge foreign states' claims to ocean areas that are in excess of international legal limits. The program's record was declassified, and is reviewed here, to test three sets of hypotheses about the relevance of international law to security affairs. These hypotheses are drawn from the three dominant schools of international relations theory: realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism. The realist set of hypotheses contend that the United States, while justifying the program under international law, used it mostly to counter the excessive claims of unfriendly states. The neoliberal institutionalist hypotheses argue that the United States would want to maintain a reputation for even-handed application of the program, in order to encourage other states to enter into and comply with other international legal regimes. The constructivist hypotheses are founded on the belief that, while realist motivations and behavior may have existed in the early years of the program, the United States' identity could also have shifted in the direction expected by neoliberal institutionalism. This is most strongly expected after President George Bush's speech encouraging a new era in which the rule of law, rather than that of the jungle, would govern the conduct of nations.; Our review of the FON program record finds that, in most years, a disproportionate number of FON assertions were conducted against unfriendly states. In addition, a smaller percentage of unfriendly states with illegal maritime claims escaped FON assertions. Friendly or neutral states with illegal claims were more likely to see their claims escape the attention of the program. The dissertation's findings therefore tend to support the realist hypotheses. |
