Supporters of space weapons point to the role of strong U.S. naval forces in keeping the sea lanes open and enforcing freedom of the seas as a model for a similar U.S. policy in space. Yet the Navy itself has concluded that a stable international legal regime provides a less costly and dangerous way to ensure freedom of the seas than sole reliance on unilateral "enforcement" through its Freedom of Navigation Program (FON). In this policy, the Navy deliberately challenges, through diplomatic protests and assertive fleet operations, what it sees to be excessive coastal claims over the oceans. The Navy has found these unilateral demonstrations of resolve increasingly risky as they were eliciting strong and potentially dangerous reactions from other states. They were also stretching the Navy thin, and other nations were reluctant to join in FON operations. The FON program was thus becoming physically, politically, and financially costly for the Navy. In the Navy's view, the LOS Treaty, by reducing the number of coastal state claims and pressure on the Navy to act unilaterally, provides a more cost-effective and reliable means of promoting U.S. interests. As the Pentagon argued, "relying solely on diplomatic and operational challenges is less desirable than establishment, through the Convention, of accepted norms of behavior."

---

Tannenwald, Nina. Law Versus Power on the High Frontier: The Case for a Rule-Based Regime for Outer Space. : , Summer 2004. [ 7 quotes ] [ page 40 ]