Search

By Kuldeep Ojha Introduction The world’s oceans, long viewed as open frontiers of commerce and conquest, are fast emerging as the next battleground of climate politics. As new currents redefine maritime politics, Costa Rica— a land known more for its rainforests than its naval doctrine — has carved out a distinct role in steering the high seas conversation through law and diplomacy. At the Third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3)  in Nice (France) this June, Costa Rica co-hosted the summit alongside France, calling for a fossil fuel exploration ban and a moratorium on deep-sea mining, while pushing for expedited ratification of the High Seas Treaty . As it looks toward COP30 in Belém, Brazil, Costa Rica’s ocean diplomacy offers more than moral suasion; it signals the arrival of small, values-driven states as active architects of a new environmental multilateralism. Photo credit: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Ocean Diplomacy as Statecraft: Costa Rica’s Turn to the High Seas For much of the twentieth century, ocean governance was the preserve of naval powers and trading giants. The rules were set by those who commanded the seas, not those who merely bordered them. However, as climate change unsettles traditional hierarchies in the twenty-first century, Costa Rica’s ascent as a maritime norm entrepreneur underscores how environmental diplomacy is increasingly becoming a theatre for small state agencies. In contrast to earlier summits, at UNOC3, Costa Rica did not serve as ceremonial; it was the thematic tone. President Rodrigo Chaves’ call for a global ban on fossil fuel exploration and a moratorium on deep-sea mining was far from symbolic; it challenged the inertia of the climate regime. Backed by years of legal activism  and environmental credibility, Costa Rica’s insistence on fast-tracking the implementation of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Treaty  placed it at the heart of a diplomatic effort long stalled by geopolitical hesitation. It is not merely environmental idealism. Costa Rica understands that moral clarity can be converted into diplomatic capital in a fractured multilateral order. Its ocean diplomacy is strategic — deploying law, coalition-building, and convening power to influence norms that larger states often struggle to shape. It is not the statecraft of fleets but of principled persistence. Marine Protected Areas and the New Geography of Conservation Although not a maritime military power; Costa Rica quietly redefines its oceanic jurisdiction. The recent designation of new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)  — notably near Cocos Island  —signals a shift where conservation zones are doubling as instruments of geopolitical relevance. Backed by a €1.8 million EU fund secured at UNOC3, Costa Rica conserves biodiversity and asserts sovereignty through sustainability. MPAs are not just conservation maps; they are diplomatic assets. The scaling-up of protection zones aligns with global targets such as the 30x30 goal , safeguarding 30 percent of the planet’s land and seas by 2030. More than symbolic gestures, these conservation areas embed Costa Rica into evolving international architectures that bind marine life protection with climate targets and carbon market mechanisms . This redefinition of maritime space reflects a broader shift in geopolitical relevance in the climate age. Costa Rica’s MPAs, legally codified and internationally backed, represent soft assertion — a model of how ecological stewardship can translate into geopolitical voice. Photo Credit- Xinhua News From UNOC3 to COP30: Maritime Climate Governance and the Ocean Breakthroughs Agenda Diplomacy rarely moves in straight lines. It advances through alignments. Costa Rica’s role has expanded — from co-leading discussions at UNOC3 to framing key priorities ahead of COP30 in Belém. In doing so, San José positions itself as a link between marine stewardship and the evolving architecture of international climate governance. The Ocean Breakthroughs Agenda, which Costa Rica champions alongside like-minded states, represents an inspiring effort to embed ocean governance into climate frameworks. New instruments such as the Ocean Equity Index  and the Ocean Investment Protocol mark the beginning of a financing and accountability architecture that gives coastal developing states a meaningful stake in shaping future ocean governance. President Chaves’ pledge to integrate marine protection into national climate policy is not just domestic reform. It is foreign policy, a signal to COP30 that oceans are integral to mitigation and adaptation, not peripheral. As many states hesitate, Costa Rica is pushing a Global South proposition: that the maritime commons must be governed with equity, not expedience. Strategic Implications: Can Small States Shape Big Ocean Norms? In today’s fractured international landscape, small-state efforts are often brushed aside as moral theatre. Costa Rica’s maritime strategy suggests otherwise. Its advocacy for the High Seas Treaty, smart leverage of blue finance and quiet leadership in conservation forums suggest a recalibration: norms can constrain even powerful actors when persistently advanced and legally codified. The road ahead is steeper. As the UNCLOS  framework attracts political friction and COP30’s stakes grow, Costa Rica will need more than principled leadership. Converting commitments into durable regulation will hinge on domestic capability and international alignment. Moreover, normative gains may trigger backlash from fossil lobbies, deep-sea mining consortiums, or maritime security hawks. Nevertheless, it is in moments of flux that small states matter most. Anchoring action in law and legitimacy, rather than coercion or extraction, allows countries like Costa Rica to influence global norms with outsized effect. While naval might still matters, it is consensus that increasingly defines the rules at sea. Furthermore, voices from the periphery are no longer silent in crafting that consensus — their voices now register where they count. Conclusion Costa Rica’s maritime diplomacy is more than a soft power story; it marks an inflection point. As COP30 approaches, the real challenge will be endurance. Can Costa Rica, and others like it, convert summit-stage credibility into sustained normative authority? If it succeeds, it may secure its marine ecosystems and widen the aperture for small-state agencies in global affairs. Ultimately, the high seas will not be governed solely by great power prerogatives. They will be shaped by those willing to defend them — legally, diplomatically, and morally. Costa Rica, for now, leads from the periphery. #CostaRica #HighSeasTreaty #UNOC3 #COP30 #OceanDiplomacy #MarineProtectedAreas #ClimateJustice #SmallStateDiplomacy This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Kuldeep Ojha is a PhD scholar in Latin American Studies at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). His research focuses on environmental governance in Central America, and his interests extend to the Latin American region and its geopolitics.

By Shreya Nautiyal Europe must realise that key to its credibility in South Asia lies in adopting a more nuanced and principled stance in the region   Credibility in foreign policy is seldom secured by rhetoric alone - it requires steady and context-sensitive engagement . Europe’s reflexive call for “ restraint and dialogue” when India is acting against terrorism suggests a disconnect between principled rhetoric and strategic empathy. The equal treatment of both states in question, despite one being clearly under assault, reflects a striking blindness.  While the world mourns the loss of innocent lives in what was supposed to be an eden of tranquility in India’s Kashmir valley, the international response remained notably uneven. As India asserted its moral and strategic agency through Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025, the international response was not met with collective support but rather with a calculated silence from certain quarters. In particular, Europe’s stance was marked less by an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism and more by a disturbing pattern of discretionary indignation - a phenomenon that raises questions about the West’s inconsistent moral compass.   Europe’s Selective Outrage In the event of Pakistan’s disproportionate shelling  on Indian border towns post Operation Sindoor, an egregious example of Europe’s double standards emerged when European Union’s (EU) top diplomat Kaja Kallus prompted India and Pakistan to “ exercise restraint and pursuit dialogue” amid regional tensions. Such a flawed equivalence between the perpetrator and the victim of terrorism reflects a complete disregard for the loss of twenty six lives  and clearly lacks strategic nuance. It is, however, important to acknowledge that India’s initial response was measured and calculated - characterised by economic and diplomatic measures aimed at curtailing the privileges extended to Pakistan - before resorting to the use of military might . In fact, India’s operation Sindoor was meticulously designed to target terrorist bases  in Pakistan, ensuring no harm to Pakistan’s military installations or civilian areas , thus conforming to the principles outlined in the Geneva Convention .   Ironically, Kallas has previously underscored the importance of a robust defence mechanism, cautioning against what she terms as the “ trap of self-deterrence ” and asserting that “ appeasement only strengthens the aggressor ”. Yet, even as Brussels demands global cognisance and solidarity when its own interests are at stake, it uses a separate yardstick for humanitarian crises and terrorism elsewhere - issues in the Global South barely receive a whisper within Brussels’ corridors. The Western media often spotlights the humanitarian suffering in Ukraine crisis - often labeled as the ‘ white man’s war ’- as well as in the discussions concerning terrorism in Europe or the migration crisis, constructing a moral narrative that concerns European fragilities. However, when it comes to the issues beyond its borders, Europe’s unwavering advocacy championing values and human rights often takes a backseat.   Its hyphenated approach and a neutral stance on the ongoing Indo-Pak crisis exposes Europe’s wilful neglect and a deliberate marginalisation of non-European issues. Dr. Jaishankar in his 2022 speech , astutely remarked that “Europe’s problems are world’s problems but world’s problems are not Europe’s problems”.  In a similar vein, in  2024, European Commissions’s former Vice President, Josep Borrell highlighted the “ double standards ” of the west in cases of international law, wars and climate change and therefore called out Europe for compartmentalising the world into two sub-divisions - “ West against the Rest ” conceding that “diplomacy is the art of managing double standards ”. Its strategic silence and selective amnesia reveals the deep-seated disparities that define global diplomacy in the 21st century.   A Timeline of the 21st Century that Europe Ignores   EU has been following an equidistant approach even when Pakistan’s defence minister Khwaja Asif has recently admitted the country’s history of supporting, training and funding terrorist organisations as “ dirty work ” for the West, a mistake for which he said Pakistan had suffered. Brussels’ selective outrage becomes even more indefensible when viewed against the backdrop of terrorism India has endured, all backed by Pakistan-based terrorist organisations :   •    2000  : Chittisinghpura massacre  (36 Sikhs killed by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists), Kashmir •    2001  : Indian Parliament attack  (terrorists affiliated with Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and LeT), New Delhi •    2006  : 7/11 train bombing  (responsibility claimed by LeT), Mumbai •    2008 : 26/11 attacks  ( Ajmal Kasab , LeT terrorist, the only surviving terrorist; his subsequent arrest confirmed Pakistan’s role ), Mumbai •    2016 : Uri attack  (attack backed by JeM ), Kashmir •    2019 : Pulwama attack (attack on Indian security forces by JeM), Kashmir •    2024 : Reasi attack on Hindu pilgrims (responsibility taken by The Resistance Front  (TRF)), Jammu •    2025 : Pahalgam attack  (backed by TRF), Kashmir West pays no heed to the miseries of the local populace of Global South. Despite clear proofs of Islamabad disturbing the peace of New Delhi, International Monetary Fund (IMF) is willing to loan $1 billion  to Pakistan under its Extended Fund Facility. However, amidst the Russia-Ukraine war ,  EU consistently urged India to reduce its Russian ties and ban the import of Russian oil, even as a number of European countries continued to remain Russia’s top fossil fuel buyers. This shows a clear stance of Europe’s strategic convenience - preaching peace and restraint on the global front while pursuing national interests at home.   Partners, Not Preachers : A Need for Coherence   In his recent address on a global platform, Dr. Jaishankar unequivocally stated “When we look out at the world, we look for partners not preachers. Particularly preachers who do not practice at home but preach abroad…..Some of Europe is still struggling with that problem.” India looks up for friends in need, to develop a meaningful partnership which requires a caution and sensitivity towards the realities of the present world. Europe has to be cautious in its fence-sitting diplomacy in Indo-Pak realities, one that cannot be simply overlooked based on their geographical proximity and shared history. Europe cannot and should not turn a blind eye to the current realities of the world. It must shed its moral duplicity and adopt a principled stance on the issues of terrorism, human rights and sovereignty - one that not just accrues to its own states internationally too. There is no room for double standards . If a rules-based order is to be maintained, then it should not turn to be a rules-for-others order. An approach adopting inconsistent moral stand erodes credibility and reinforces the belief that the rules of the West dictate only the rest. #OperationSindoor   This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Shreya Nautiyal is a PhD scholar at the Centre for European Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Delhi, and a Master’s degree from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in International Relations and Area Studies. Her research focuses on the intersection of economics, governance, and efforts aimed towards counter-terrorism, particularly within South Asia and Europe.

By Aman J Thomas In Romeo and Juliet , Shakespeare asked ‘What’s in a name’? and the answer is ‘a lot’. Words have meanings and those words in the form of language and map making can shape the material realities and political choices. Donald Trump, in one of his first presidential orders, has decided to rename Mount Denali to Mount McKinley after President McKinley , an imperialist under whom the U.S. brought Hawaii and Guam under its control, and whom Trump refers to as a model president he would like to emulate. He has also ordered the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America , reflecting his expansionist rhetoric.    George Orwell’s ‘1984’ is strikingly relevant today . Orwell reminds us that ‘Big Brother’ is really keeping an eye on us. In the novel ‘1984’, the notorious "Ministry of Truth," and its mission to adapt the past to the present, and its attempt to change history. The names of people from street signs, scholarships, dorms, monuments, and the like are struck down using the clear magnifying glass of "Presentism". Colonial and imperial powers have imposed their identity and culture by renaming places in colonial lands and later native people have reclaimed their identity and culture by self-determination. Renaming places also has geopolitical and ideological interests. Colonialism has effectively used renaming as a tool to oppress the history, culture and tradition of native people. Through place naming, colonialism aimed to imprint meaning and order onto human landscapes. The colonial place names that were imposed or codified served to legitimize territorialization and strengthened settlers' rights to the land. Alfred Mahan is credited to have coined the term Middle East in 1902 but it does not reflect any sense from a geographic point of view. The Middle East vaguely represents the identity or geographical positioning of the place, it rather points that it is Middle East of another region or state, which brings up the question: the Middle East of what? The term Middle East reflects the colonial imperial identity that the British gave and later the U.S. has adopted. There have been movements against colonialism, especially those headed by organizations that identify as indigenous, have been increasingly instrumental in mobilizing support for self-determination. For instance,  renaming cities in India has been an effort to do rid of the lingering effects of British rule. In 1995, Bombay reclaimed its name from the Marathi language and became Mumbai. A return to regional linguistic and cultural origins was also reflected in the renaming of Madras as Chennai and Calcutta as Kolkata. These changes weren't only aesthetic; they were a part of a larger effort to reshape the country's identity according to its own standards. The renaming process has had an equally revolutionary effect throughout Africa. As Robert Kaplan reminds us , the way maps are created and labeled also matters since it influences how the strong perceive the world. There are numerous instances of renaming places for geopolitical interests. As Machiavelli emphasized that states also act out of pride and prestige , thereby from a realist perspective, we can grasp why states tend to change the toponym of strategic places, China has been employing the strategy of renaming places with countries that it has maritime and border disputes with. The Chinese call the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands as Xisha and Nansha islands which are in the South China Sea and the Senkaku islands as Diaoyu islands  over which they have disputes with the Japanese. They refer to Aksai Chin as the southwestern part of Hotan prefecture of Xinjiang, which India considers as an integral part of Jammu & Kashmir. As the age-old axiom goes “If you rebel against someone, someone will rebel against you” and thus the effort to rename places is not only limited to the Chinese. To counter the Chinese expansion, countries led by the U.S. are also actively trying to balance China in the region and as a part of it, the U.S has opted for the use of the term Indo-Pacific which was earlier referred as Asia-Pacific . The term "Indo-Pacific" was hardly used ten years ago, but today the U.S., India, Japan and other countries refer to the region as Indo- Pacific.  There can also be ideological and political reasons for renaming places. In the last century, the city of St. Petersburg has had two name changes . Peter the Great founded St. Petersburg in the early 1700s, and while it retained its founder’s name, it also clearly showed the influence of Europe. The name’s Germanic "burg" was a reference to the Westernization movement that characterized Peter's rule. But the moniker became an intolerable encumbrance when World War I broke out and Russia was at war with Germany. As nationalist sentiment grew in 1914, the city was renamed Petrograd , changing its suffix to the Slavic “grad”, signifying its transition from a multicultural outpost to a distinctly Russian bastion. The city thereafter experienced yet another change following Lenin's passing in 1924. The Bolshevik leader’s legacy was woven into the very foundation of the Soviet Union’s urban setting when Petrograd was transformed into Leningrad . Residents chose to return it to its previous name, St. Petersburg , years after the USSR collapsed in 1991, making a full cycle of historical revision. Place names are important as they inscribe ideological messages about past practices and they permeate daily vocabulary through visual and verbal cues like road signs, addresses, advertising billboards and maps. Place names not only mould history, but they also mend group and cultural identity because of the shared context of using these toponyms. #US #Mexico This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog   Aman J Thomas is currently a second-year student pursuing a Master’s in Politics with Specialization in International Studies (M.A PISM) from the School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University, JNU.

ABOUT THE BLOG The 'SIS Blog' is an initiative of the School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University to disseminate contemporary debates, comments and opinions related to international relations. This blog will publish posts written by faculty members, students, alumni of SIS and invited contributors. Blogging is a dynamic way to complement other channels of knowledge and engage vast audiences with new perspectives.

Index of International Studies Quarterly Dr. MD Naushad Archival Superintendent Room No. 132, Editorial Office, School of International Studies-I Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi-110067 Email ID: naushadk112@yahoo.com Mob. No. 9899621554

Editorial Collective Blog Coordinator Prof. Sameena Hameed Chairperson Centre for West Asian Studies Dr. Sheetal Sharma Associate Professor Centre for European Studies Dr. Sakti Prasad Srichandan Assistant Professor Centre for European Studies Dr. Ankita Dutta Assistant Professor Centre for European Studies Aarshiya Chowdhary PhD Research Scholar Centre for European Studies