A COALITION of leading maritime nations has mounted an unusually public defence of the international rules-based order governing shipping, warning that geopolitical rivalry is increasingly threatening the foundations of global trade.
The Consultative Shipping Group, an informal alliance of 18 maritime administrations from Europe and Asia, has issued its first significant public statement in decades, arguing the framework underpinning freedom of navigation and international shipping is under growing pressure.
While framed as a call for co-operation, the intervention reflects mounting concern among regulators that maritime governance is becoming increasingly politicised, from sanctions enforcement and shadow fleet* operations to disputes over strategic waterways and freedom of navigation.
“We have been too quiet for too long,” Brian Wessel, director-general of the Danish Maritime Authority and current chair of the CSG, told Lloyd’s List.
“We want to be a voice in shipping that is increasingly needed in the world we live in. Maritime governance is at the core of what we believe in, and it is a core necessity for free trade.”
The CSG comprises Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Collectively, they represent many of the world’s leading maritime nations but have largely operated outside the public spotlight until now.
Its intervention comes amid growing tensions over the interpretation and application of maritime law but, more immediately, also comes ahead of a meeting of CSG state representatives with US officials later this month.
Freedom principles
While broad support for the principles of freedom of navigation is routinely touted by all governments internationally, an increasingly sharp divide is developing in the national interpretation of what that freedom extends to.
Russia has repeatedly invoked freedom of navigation principles while condemning European seizures and inspections of vessels linked to its shadow fleet. Moscow argues that sanctions enforcement measures obstruct lawful navigation and has challenged proposals at the International Maritime Organization requiring greater insurance transparency.
China likewise supports freedom of navigation for commercial shipping, while arguing that such rights cannot be used to undermine national sovereignty in contested areas including the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.
Both countries increasingly portray the US and its allies as contributors to the erosion of the maritime order, albeit for different reasons.
Russia argues that Western enforcement against shadow fleet vessels exceeds the bounds of international maritime law and represents an attempt to weaponise shipping and maritime chokepoints for economic pressure.
China has accused the US of using freedom of navigation operations to challenge its territorial claims and of contributing to instability in key shipping regions through its broader security policies. Chinese state media has also portrayed disruptions in the Red Sea as evidence of declining US influence and an increasingly fragile alliance system.
The convergence reflects a broader narrative increasingly shared by Moscow and Beijing. Joint statements have argued that a US-backed “rules-based order” is being used to supplant internationally agreed legal frameworks, particularly those derived from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Western governments, notably with the CSG grouping, reject that interpretation. They argue that enforcement actions against shadow fleet vessels are justified by sanctions violations, safety concerns and maritime security risks, while freedom of navigation operations are intended to uphold rights established under international law.
The competing interpretations illustrate how big powers increasingly profess support for the same principles while disagreeing sharply on how they should be applied and enforced.
That tension sits at the heart of the CSG’s warning.
Its statement argues that disruptions to key trade routes, the expansion of the shadow fleet and diverging interpretations of international rules are not isolated developments but evidence of a broader shift in the operating environment for global trade.
“Shipping routes are increasingly instruments of leverage and risk,” the statement says, warning that fragmentation could create parallel shipping systems: one operating within established regulatory frameworks and another outside traditional insurance, safety and transparency regimes.
The CSG stops short of proposing new regulations or tabling measures at the IMO to address the issue. Wessel says the aim is not to launch a political initiative but to rebuild consensus around principles that have long underpinned international commerce.
“The establishment of this group was founded on shared beliefs. We have built global trade on the assumption that ships can move freely across borders. But that assumption is now under pressure,” he said.
“We’re reaching out as a group of 18 states hoping to reverse that direction. We want to work with states and focus on retaining the elements where we can find consensus.”
The decision to use the traditionally low-profile CSG to deliver the message reflects recognition that many of the disputes dividing major powers at the UN, IMO and diplomatic level are unlikely to be resolved soon.
Rather than trying to resolve those disagreements, the CSG is seeking to preserve consensus around the basic principles of maritime governance before disputes over specific policies further erode confidence in the institutions responsible for administering them.
Whether the group’s appeal gains traction remains uncertain.
The US remains a dialogue partner within the CSG and did not sign the statement. Nevertheless, the intervention comes weeks before CSG members meet in the US for discussions with representatives from the State Department, Maritime Administration and US Coast Guard.
For Wessel, the immediate objective is less about securing policy commitments than reminding governments what is at stake.
“There is a lot we can agree on,” he said. “This paper sets out why that is important.”
Behind the statement lies a broader warning. For shipping nations increasingly concerned by geopolitical fragmentation, the greatest risk may not be any single dispute over sanctions, chokepoints or shadow fleets, but the gradual erosion of the maritime order that has enabled globalisation itself.
As the CSG argues, when maritime supply chains fragment, the global economy fragments with them.
