Gray Zones, Missiles, Shadow Fleets, and Cyber Threats: The New Maritime Disorder

The oceans are once again at the center of global turbulence. In just the past few weeks, Taiwan accused mainland China of violating international law by drilling for oil and gas near the Pratas Islands, commercial shipping in the Red Sea faced renewed missile threats from Yemen’s Houthi rebels, cyber-attacks and shadow fleets in Europe’s maritime infrastructure exposed the fragility of undersea cables and shipping networks, all alongside a resurgence of old-fashioned competition over resources and maritime activities. These incidents, scattered across different seas, converge on a common theme: maritime security and governance are under duress. As 2025 moves into its final months, these flashpoints reveal not just regional disputes, but also systemic challenges to how the world manages the oceans as a global common.

China’s drilling near the Pratas Islands, in waters administered by Taiwan and claimed as part of its exclusive economic zone, reveals the complex interplay between competing maritime claims and international legal norms under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Beijing, for its part, regards these waters as falling within its sovereignty claims over Taiwan and the surrounding maritime zones, which adds further legal and political complexity. The episode illustrates how differing interpretations of maritime rights can blur the line between lawful resource exploration and contested activity, raising broader questions about the enforceability of maritime boundaries and the capacity of regional mechanisms to manage such disputes. It also reflects the challenges faced by all parties in balancing legal recourse with the need to avoid escalation.

The renewed Houthi missile and drone attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea are a stark reminder of how exposed global trade routes remain. The Red Sea is one of the world’s busiest chokepoints, carrying both energy and goods, and every strike sends ripples far beyond the region. The United States has led naval patrols through a coalition of Western allies, but the persistence of asymmetric threats shows the limits of military deterrence. China, which depends heavily on oil shipments through these waters, has urged restraint and called for diplomatic solutions, though it has stopped short of joining U.S.-led patrols.  Other Gulf countries, mindful of security risks and regional sensitivities, have largely avoided joining U.S.-led operations like Operation Prosperity Guardian. Instead, they have emphasized de-escalation and continued trade. Oman, in particular, has positioned itself as a quiet mediator, urging restraint and dialogue to prevent escalation in the Red Sea and beyond.

In Northern Europe, the risks look different but are no less troubling. The rise of so-called “shadow fleets” — old, poorly maintained oil tankers operating outside international insurance and safety regimes — shows how sanction evasion brings new risks at sea. Norway has become a focal point, tracking such vessels along the North Sea and Arctic routes. In August 2025, Oslo introduced a six-month scheme requiring transiting oil tankers to provide proof of insurance, aiming to reduce the risk of uninsured accidents. Greenpeace Norway’s Frode Pleym warned that “It is not a question of if, but when, an accident with a shadow fleet tanker will happen along our coast”.  Analysts also note that these fleets, which may now account for a significant share of global oil shipments, pose risks not just to coastal states but to the global maritime order.

At the same time, suspected cyber sabotage and undersea cable incidents point to vulnerabilities in the digital backbone of globalization. A recent analysis found 44 cable damage events across 2024 and 2025, some likely tied to state-linked vessels, underscoring how geopolitical tensions are shifting into the digital domain.  These are not just maritime threats but assaults on the infrastructure that underpins trade, finance, and communications worldwide — a reminder that maritime insecurity now extends deep into advanced economies and the global systems they depend on.

The cases of the South China Sea, the Red Sea, and Northern Europe may look very different, but they share a common thread: no single state can manage these challenges alone. This is where cooperative initiatives become especially important. The recent India–Singapore maritime security partnership is one example of how smaller and middle powers can reinforce norms, deter coercion, and create new avenues for shared governance. 

At the regional level, ASEAN has long sought to build guardrails through instruments like the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and ongoing negotiations for a binding Code of Conduct — modest steps, but important in showing that dialogue and rules-making remain possible. 

In the Middle East, the EU’s naval missions such as Operation Atalanta and the European-led Maritime Awareness in the Strait of Hormuz (EMASoH) demonstrate how multinational action can reduce risks in dangerous waters while balancing military presence with diplomatic engagement. In the wider Indo-Pacific, the Quad countries — the United States, Japan, India, and Australia — are advancing maritime domain awareness and information-sharing projects that help smaller coastal states strengthen their monitoring capacity, though critics argue these efforts also serve to counter China and risk deepening regional rivalries.

These examples of cooperation show that even amid growing friction, states and institutions can still find common ground at sea. Maritime governance is not only about deterring threats but also about cultivating habits of collaboration that can outlast any single crisis. Recent flashpoints — from drilling disputes in the South China Sea and renewed attacks in the Red Sea to the rise of unregulated fleets, cyber risks, and new regional partnerships — highlight both the vulnerabilities and the possibilities of ocean governance. The seas are no longer mere geographic frontiers but contested political, economic, and digital arenas. Without a renewed commitment to rules and cooperation, they risk sliding into disorder — and with them, the stability of the global system itself.