The Maritime Logic of Power
“He who controls the sea controls the world.”
This maxim, attributed to ancient wisdom, encapsulates a geopolitical constant that has once again moved to the forefront of strategic thought: thalassocracy—the exercise of state power through the strategic mastery of the seas.
From the maritime city-states of classical Greece to the great oceanic empires of the modern era, naval supremacy has never constituted an end in itself. Maritime dominance has always been instrumental. The ultimate objective of sea power is terrestrial: to shape events on land, safeguard territories, secure supply lines, and influence political outcomes. Naval warfare—and maritime strategy more broadly—derives its meaning solely from its service to the fundamental purposes of the state: security, prosperity, and international projection.
In the twenty-first century, this logic assumes renewed magnitude. Approximately 80 percent of global trade is transported by sea. Supply chains, energy security, and the stability of the world economy depend upon oceanic routes that traverse inherently vulnerable spaces. The maritime domain is no longer a peripheral theatre of strategy; it constitutes the structural axis of the international system.
International legal architecture reflects this centrality. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea grants coastal states an Exclusive Economic Zone extending up to 200 nautical miles, within which they exercise sovereign rights over resources and economic exploitation. Maritime control is therefore inseparable from sovereignty, energy security, and economic development.
Yet the decisive dimension of contemporary thalassocracy lies in the so-called choke points: narrow maritime corridors through which disproportionate volumes of trade and energy resources flow. The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 30 percent of the world’s seaborne oil transits, represents a paradigmatic case. Any disruption there reverberates instantly across international markets. The Strait of Malacca, indispensable to Asia’s energy lifelines, constitutes another strategic bottleneck where global interests converge and compete.
Within this framework, the maritime rivalry between the United States and China emerges with increasing clarity. For decades, Washington has embodied the dominant thalassocratic power, underwriting the security of sea lanes through its global naval presence. Beijing, in turn, seeks to secure its lines of communication, mitigate its energy vulnerabilities, and expand its influence across the Indo-Pacific. The oceans have become the principal arena of their strategic contestation.
Europe, meanwhile, finds itself in a position of strategic ambivalence. Deeply dependent upon maritime commerce yet fragmented in its strategic posture, it lacks a unified naval vision capable of shaping the global maritime environment. The resulting disjunction between economic reliance and strategic ambition constrains its autonomy.
The Mediterranean offers a revealing microcosm. This sea remains a critical node linking Europe, Africa, and Asia. The Strait of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal retain their enduring relevance as gateways to markets and resources. Simultaneously, energy disputes in the Eastern Mediterranean and the progressive militarization of regional waters underscore the persistence of maritime competition.
Thalassocracy does not necessarily entail territorial conquest; rather, it signifies the governance of flows—of goods, energy, data, and security. In an interdependent world, the capacity to disrupt such flows may prove as decisive as the occupation of territory itself.
History demonstrates that powers which neglect the sea incur strategic costs. Today, as vessels pass silently through the world’s straits, far more than commercial transit is at stake. What is being determined is nothing less than the balance of power in the twenty-first century.
