Jeju Peace Institute

Fighting maritime environmental pollution requires international cooperation. While working together for maritime environmental protection, countries can also build confidence and the habit of cooperation. Do confidence-building and the habit of cooperation from maritime environmental cooperation also contribute to multilateral cooperation in security issues, as argued by the proponents of the Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative (NAPCI)? This research answers the above question by examining three maritime environmental protection projects: the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), the East Asian Seas Action Plan (EASAP), and the Northwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP). While dialogue and cooperation among countries have increased through these projects, it is difficult to conclude that these projects have also promoted multilateral cooperation in ‘hard’ security issues. The initial momentum for MAP came not from a middle power but from a hegemonic power, setting MAP apart from NAPCI. There is little evidence that the success of MAP contributed to international cooperation in hard security issues. Counter-intuitively, NOWPAP is more successful, not less successful, than EASAP, because ASEAN, the regional cooperative body, competed against EASAP, rather than reinforcing or complementing EASAP. One conclusion that follows from this finding is that the relationship between maritime environmental cooperation and multilateral security cooperation may be more contradictory than complementary. Contents I. The Need for a New Peace and Security Mechanism II. Why Study Marine Environment Cooperation? III. Mediterranean Action Plan: MAP IV. EASAP & NOWPAP V. Implications VI. Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative: Assumption and Reality​