Review Article, J Def Stud Resour Manage Vol: 6 Issue: 1

Security Consequences of Deep-Sea Mining with a Focus on Upcoming Changes in the Current Role of Traditional Naval Forces

Daniel Machytka^* and Jan Osterreicher

CEVRO Institute Jungmannova, Prague 1, Czech Republic

*Corresponding Author : Daniel Machytka
CEVRO Institute Jungmannova, Prague 1, Czech Republic
E-mail: daniel.machytka@vsci.cz

Received: October 03, 2019 Accepted: October 16, 2019 Published: October 29, 2019

Citation: Machytka D, Osterreicher J (2019) Security Consequences of Deep-Sea Mining with a Focus on Upcoming Changes in the Current Role of Traditional Naval Forces. J Def Stud Resour Manage 6:1

Abstract

Keywords: Security consequences of deep-sea miming; Resource war; Naval power and navy; Geopolitics of natural resources; Territorial disputes; Exclusive economic zones

Hypothesis

Ongoing territorial disputes in the 21st century will lead to a new era of worldwide territorial struggles where several coastal states will wage resource wars over their overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones while other global actors will choose deep-sea mining as a new frontier for their expansion. In such expansion, the Naval Forces and their transformation will play a crucial role in the nation´s resource security policy.

Introduction

All rulers and every government struggle with resource scarcity and therefore look forever new mining fields or for brand new sources that could supply the growing needs of their nation. With a closer look at the geographical map of the World, we realize that around two-thirds of its surface is covered by oceans and seas. And under the mass of water, the same resources as in the continental soil could be found. But their quality, purity and even quantity are beyond common standards of conventional underground mining. Contemporary technologies allow us step-by-step to utilize resources that could not be reached before and look for the future of the Deep-sea mining era [1]. The biggest quest is obviously the hunt for oil and gas reservoirs. There are many examples and to name a few we can remember debacle in the Gulf of Guinea where the Nigerian government indebted their nation to begin with deep-sea mining but the international debt was so big that they had to abandon their plan before the mining could even begin. Unfounded resources are quite a common outcome in a quest for finding oil. But the untapped potential of the existing reservoir is something completely different, yet still also a typical situation for this kind of industry. For example, the Shtokman oil and gas field is a territory with the expected potential capacity to supply whole nations as big as Germany for more than 25 years, but the local mass production is impeded by its location because it is located in the vicinity of borderline with the Russian Federation and Norway. Surprisingly both nations would like to claim those resources in the full potential of this reservoir. Another example could be seen around zinc mining industry and other metal fields that are located in Okinawa waters. Estimates believe that even only a one-month long mining period in this area could supply Japan with Zinc ore for over a year. This mining potential has already been announced even in general media (see more at https://ramumine.wordpress.com or https://www.japantimes.co).

The truth is that underwater resources are slowly hitting attention not only of academics and industry but also by the general public and politicians. To name more examples. Arctic and Antarctic resources represent even more intriguing mining possibilities because those areas have already attracted attention off several Transnational Corporations and many Governments would like to use them. We can also speculate about underwater resources hidden in areas that are currently under long term territorial disputes and geopolitical struggles [2]. These are of course the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin waters or Spratly islands to name just a few [3,4]. To name more we can speculate about the hidden potential beneath the Paracel Islands, but also about many other resource-based issues and ocean governance disputes in the Asia Pacific area [5]. Public attention should also be pointed at the strategic position of Falklands and their proximity to the Drake's Strait. All those territories have one in common. They are untapped wells of natural resources located in territories ridden with geopolitical and territorial disputes. They are most likely next frontier for our expansion.

But what is the real status of these already uncovered worldwide well-known fields? Their security dimension correspondents with their proximity to the coastal areas. All waters and economic activities within 200 Nautical Miles from the cost of the appropriate states have a status of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) [6]. Waters outside these EEZ are recognized as international, so local natural resources technically do not have a definitive owner yet, even while any internationally recognized state can mine and utilize resources from its continental shelf up to 350 Nautical Miles. This remark is already causing clashes and territorial disputes, but their relevancy will cause even more disputes in the upcoming future. Most controversial are mining fields located in areas that are connected to the mainland by a continental shelf which is occupied by multiple countries. Therefore, for example, the Russian Federation in the past has proven that the length of its continental shelf could reach almost to the North Pole. And also, Taiwan and China claim possession of many areas, such as the Spratly Islands which on the other hand formally belong to Japan [7]. To claim ownership of such resources could be answered only by the means of adequate technology combined with ruthless military supremacy used to guard such priceless possession [8].

Recent technologies can easily extract resources from depth circa 100-150 meters. But the usual deep-sea Plato is minute up to 3-5 kilometers beneath the water surface, and it is just an initial step for the future of truly deep-sea mining. But local resources are too precious to be avoided. According to surveys the volume and purity of metal nodules are in the similar quality we last saw in the 19^th century when industrial mining started (see more at https://worldoceanreview.com). They are richer and purer than other resources obtained from the current inland mining operation. Deepsea oil and gas fields might cover our needs for centuries. We might, therefore, predict that there will be a strong consequential impact of deep-sea mining on the security politics of existing countries. Within two or four generations we might expect struggles or even limited wars related to mining areas under dispute. Natural resources have tendencies to awoke violent conflicts and civil wars [9].

But the final frontier is hidden beyond easily accessible areas of EEZ, therefore it will exist outsider current rules and current legal mechanisms which are governing ownership of such areas [10]. Then deep-sea mining outside EEZ and future mining rights ownership of areas beyond continental shelves will become a dominant part of resource-based industries and policies. We can expect an increase in the number and variety of security questions related to future mining rights. The future will bring many open disputes because any mineable area without a decisive owner will be sooner or later demanded by at least two players, with a strong claim to get it. It is not sure if there will any military clashes among national states, but it is highly expectable that Transnational Corporations with interests in such areas will claim possession of those territories while manipulating the hard power of many countries. Meanwhile, clashes between national states acting alone will be highly uncommon, but the turbulence between other global actors will be quite common. Future referent actors combining private capital and state-owned military power will be those we will have to be afraid about. The ideal referent actor of the future will, therefore, be a transnational corporation supported by a state hard power.

Deep-sea mining may lead to a similar situation as was before World War I. Technologically advanced and economically developed countries without access to cheap abundant resources might call for a revision of a status quo existing on the current geopolitical map of the World. For example, today united Germany, Japan, and China will be continuously struggling for resources in their future, despite their technologic development and energy efficiency endeavors. If we omit recent rich fields in Africa and Siberia (and those in the Antarctic), deep-sea resources will be the only option to supply their economic growth and ever-increasing population needs. Therefore, these countries, most likely combining their interest with global Transnational Corporations, will be the future conflict actors. These conflicts will have one common trait. They all will need strong Navy Forces, which will include not only carriers, submarines, and mobile bases, but also combined units enriched by autonomous weapons to reduce human losses and increase operational flexibility. Thus, the golden era of Navy Forces with cutting edge technologies might start pretty soon. In light of these findings, this paper would like to postulate a new possible way to prevent these conflicts. We believe that the relatively peaceful way how to avoid such security consequences would be to develop a new UN resolution dealing with seabed mining such as deep-sea mining areas and recognize this resolution worldwide. Our postulate contains the mechanism of deep-sea and noman land possession by existing countries and other future global actors.

Current valid UN resolutions and agreements describing international waters don’t meet with the future demands of mine everywhere on the World. It might seem inevitable to territorially divide a deep-sea surface and underwater areas among existing countries. Otherwise, our ancestors might witness the first Worldwide Resource War. Besides, a more or less similar situation will occur on Antarctica when its fields under thick ice cover will come to be accessible for miming due to future changes in international law. But we believe that the future of under-water mining operations will be governed by spontaneous discoveries of rich reservoirs existing without any existing territorial related patterns, as well as by mining within volatile overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones [11].

Our proposed mechanism will also come handy when the UN budget struggles to cover recent and future UN military-style missions around the World. Our mechanism brings a solution to how to balance these financial demands. We believe there is a plausible way how to auction those territories to the highest bidders meanwhile providing an owner with a legal concession to mine within these areas as well as to use any other solution, which could involve, exploration of local natural resources, research activities, defense base activities, and military action against unjust intruders. These newly so-called Deepsea Economical Zones will become the commodity with a market potential of long term natural resources. International treaties about the ownership of specified territory will become a bond or securities sui generis.

With current existing data, we believe that the question of Transnational Corporations as possible speculative bidders should be rejected because these companies so far do not possess their own military forces (officially) nor naval security capacities. Therefore if they wish to support their interests to mine anywhere on High Seas, they will have to persuade sympathizing governments with sufficient hard power, mostly governments where they enjoy major influence. But on the other hand, if UN and all current sovereign countries are reluctant to issue and ratify such resolution, then there is a strong risk that Transnational Corporations will develop their own para-military forces and thus become classic hard power of the future international relations. Then future geo-politics map will be re-drawn for good, between state-owned areas and territories under private control, whose owner will be operating, transporting and protecting their goods worldwide. It is logical to expect that in a short-to-long term perspective the only military-based hard power will be held in the hands of national countries, as it is today. For obvious security reasons, one territory should contain only one united armed force to avoid the risk of conflict between these forces. Those forces should mainly exist to protect national security and national interest, as it was with the East India Company, which originally existed to fulfill the interests of the British Crown. As history teaches us the use of national forces for open economic and resource-based purposes always raises an internationally controversial question which the potential to increase geopolitical tension between nations [12].

It is, therefore, logical to expect that more aggressive nations would reach the conclusion that it will be the most practical to coordinate the use of private capital and thein national military power together while officially acting as a provider of security for mining and research operations owned by a friendly private transnational corporation. Such fusion will bring an era of specific security consequences. In all cases sooner than later we will be able to identify many upcoming changes in the current role of traditional Naval Forces because it will be the Navy who will provide necessary military support.

Conceptualization of a new looming global threat

As global order is slowly but unmistakably changing, the current geopolitical map of the world will also change. The world economic centers of the old world are losing their role not only in the global economy but also in global security. The EU, as well as the USA, is at the brink of massive inner structural changes that are closely linked to a growing need for many systemic reforms. Their economies are slowly losing not only the cost-effectiveness of their products, which EU bythe- way has lost many years ago but also momentum in bringing new cutting edge innovation. Other nations such as Russia, China, India, and many emerging markets are growing, meanwhile, and they would definitely like to sustain such growth. But to increase economic growth they have to rely on purchasable global resources, while current global markets are not going to be able to feed their needs indefinitely.

History has shown us that if nations wish to increase their economical production and also sustain their geopolitical position, they have to look for new territories as well as for better access to strategic resources, cheaper factors of production and new markets for their national goods and services. As global technological progress slowly allows us, the future territories will not be located on dry land, but rather below the sea an on it. Underwater and deep-sea territories will be crucial for the future development of mankind. But this development had not been foreseen during the time when current existing nations have constituted. The territorial and geographical layout of modern nation-states has been decided after world wars and such position was strengthened even further during the Cold War Era. States and newly constituted nations have mainly focused on land territories and borders. Not even the political elites of the current European Union with all of its energy and resource-based Leeds, as well many others, have not perceived that in a close future their resource foundation will be decided not on dry land but rather far away from I [13]. Of course one can argue that there are also many powerful nations without such ambitions or decisive strength and wealth to demand and take care of such territories. But those states probably will not be those who will try to conquer new territories by force, but rather by use of other means, such as through Transnational Corporations. Future conquest of High Seas and deep-sea mining territories will be a volatile one. List of global actors will contain not only states and their national mining companies governed by national naval power but also many transnational mining companies operating under the protection of sympathizing national Navy. As the situation and profitability of deep-sea mining will progress, we could also expect a formation of private fleets governing mining divisions of future global corporations. We can speculate what will happen to many TNC after they obtain the aspects of hard power and lost the last remnants of their nationality embodied in the national headquarters. Then TNC will become truly global.

It has happened before with East India Company and it is only logical to expect, that it could happen again. In an effort to expand while preserving the existing geographical boundaries, the states naturally have to exert them towards the open sea. However, the existence of often controversial and overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones has determined that this expansion will not be an easy one. We identify three kinds of such expansion:

• The first kind would be a slow continuous expansion from one already owned territory to its adjacent areas [10]. This expansion will be governed by the current legal order and the disputes over territorial claims will be long term

• The second kind will be shock-based sudden expansion into weakly defended areas where belligerent nations will use exploratory mining operations as a cover-up followed with massive naval maneuvers that will secure their expanding mining operations. If such sudden expansion occurs within overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones it could lead to a localized resource war [14]. But from the global security order point of view, the third kind of expansion will be the most dangerous because it will happen spontaneously, without any pattern [15]. We expect that there will be a fusion of national interest and private-owned capital. Transnational companies, in general, do not own naval security capacities, that can oversee their mining operation, secure the area and guard their convoys of goods. Nations, on the other hand, do not own capacities or legitimacy to expand anywhere

• The third kind of expansion will be characterized by the rise of relatively small hotspots localized around natural resources. Mining areas will be relatively small but transport routes of armored convoys and tendencies to expand into most profitable areas will overlap with interest and territories of other nations and actors

The current trend of weakening posture of external defense capacities goes hand to hand with the volatile economic growth of every traditional westernized nation. EU nor Japan and neither US have learned from their recent economic turbulence of the 21st century. But what they have learned is the undeniable and crucial role of accessible external resource-based territories. Historical data teaches us about social and cultural problems with natives living in such territories and the old colonial era is a story of its own. Modern colonialism is therefore done through Transnational Corporations, but even they have to deal with local socio-cultural problems on everyday bases. But for a vast part of ocean territories and seabed floor, this will not be a problem. The local population cannot protest, because it does not exist and International organizations have no functioning decisive mechanism on how to oversee them. The main question will, therefore, be mainly about territorial ownership and mining rights. As far as environmental issues are concerned, in the light of current developments, it can be assumed that they will be very strongly discussed, but that no comprehensive solution will occur. However, our proposed mechanism can provide a solution to this. The auction mechanism may contain environmental standards that must be met in the management of acquired territories, or the acquired ownership rights will be revoked. UN could also use accumulated monetary resources to clean the oceans or fund research and development of environmentally friendly technologies and to support plastic pollution cleaning policy.

Global actors are slowly recognizing this upcoming trend and we believe that right now is the perfect time to prepare a strategy on how to defend current and obtain new ocean territories. The global struggle over new territories and hostile tendencies to redistribute the current geopolitical map of the world are looming in. The imminent threat of the resource wars can be awoken again. This could be perceived even as a prelude for another global war, which would be not so far different from the tendencies and disputes before the First World War. Therefore the new global security threat could be understood as a territorial expansion not governed by a globally recognized mechanism for obtaining marine territories. Such a mechanism must honor current national borders and already existing Exclusive Economic Zones but also deals with the basal need for mining expansion. As growing economies will need more resources and new territories, the global security order will need a new peaceful mechanism on how to govern it. An absence of such a mechanism could be seen as a security dilemma sui generis.

Upcoming changes in the current role of traditional naval forces

What is the traditional role of a typical current Naval Forces? One thing is certain, such a role depends on the situation in which the home nation currently exists. For one nation the Navy´s main task is to protect territorial waters but for another nation, their local Navy serves as an instrument of its international interest. In both cases, the modern Naval Forces are there to fight intruders, seek and destroy near targets and to protect transport chokepoints. They also function as a decisive force in foreign regions where warships protect trade roads and Aircraft Carriers play a role of a mobile base covering operations within their proximity [16,17]. But we believe that the current role of the Naval Forces will increase and this increase will go hand to hand with the rising importance of the deep-sea mining profitability. Above their current role, the Naval Force of the near future will have three new major roles:

• It will protect maritime mining assets and research facilities

• The Navy will protect convoys of mined ores until they reach safe harbor

• The future Navy will work as a hacking platform with a function to take over and disrupt drone-based assets of its counterpart. Future use of drones will be based on mixed units where the operator will work as an overseer (commander) of a designated swarm of relatively autonomous drones under his control, meanwhile, relatively small floating carriers will work as drone hives (hive ships)

Taking over the hostile individual drone units will ergo work as a future fighting strategy. Hacking and dominating enemy forces will be the crucial and most efficient way how to persuade an opponent to abandon his hostile endeavors. Because drones and other autonomous units are already slowly becoming a piece of common equipment for mining and research companies, it is only logical to expect that the protection of such assets will become a new security phenomenon. Both maritime force and also mining assets will have to be protected against such a threat.

As national Naval Forces will slowly adapt to a new order they will also start to differentiate. There will be those who will specialize in protection over destruction, but as well as those who will prefer taking control over intervening hostile drones, autonomous submarines, mining bots, and many other reusable assets. The current Navy structure does not have to change, but special frigate-size or operational fleet-size task forces will be created within existing assets and battlefleets of the national Navy. Such Task groups will be created according to the power of the nation and is a reflection on the importance of the designated area of responsibility. A significant point within our future development will, therefore, be focused on the procedure of how fleets will cope with technological advances. Naval Forces will have to develop with the incorporation of cyber warfare, drones, and autonomous combat machines. But current Naval forces are stagnating in paradigmatic dominance of huge aircraft carriers, traditional destroyers, and nuclear submarines.

Aircraft Carriers are a wonderful and victorious concept of World War II. Thanks to their long-lasting technology and operational live spawn, their dominant role continues to this day [18]. But the importance of Aircraft Carriers is changing as weapons of the near future are increasingly moving beyond the protection of the vessel's armed hull. Current rising military trends are about the increasing decentralization of offensive force, while those trends can result in the emergence of many unconventional structures, such as floating gun platforms or submerged airports or even wave lurking war vessels. The development will be progressively creative and hard to predict, but we can be sure about one thing. Future combat forces will operate as mixed drones and human units. Present traditional vessels will not be able to resist such enemy that could combine the swiftness of systematic swarm assault and combat experience of the ever-present consciousness of their operation commander (in this phase of conceptualization, we can call such officers as Combat Overseers or Swarm Overseer). Every respectful Navy will have to respond to such technological development, which is slowly leading to a situation where an attack will be conducted predominantly by drones. Due to both human and monetary resource scarcity, thanks to the unwillingness of society to accept losses and because of current technological development, drones will be a logical, cost-effective, affordable, available, accessible, live preserving and socially acceptable combatant.

In regard to the above research, it can be assumed that the Navy of the world's major powers will want to play a greater role in the future of their state's military structure. We can also expect tendencies to obtain a certain level of operational autonomy on the national government, which will be needed for rapid response and ad hoc solutions dealing with sudden unconventional situations. However, this assessment could be considered justifiable, since it will be the Navy and its defense capacities that will bring resources into the domestic economy. Resources with purity and quantity that will exceed the land mining many times (see more at https://worldoceanreview.com) [19]. The power of the maritime force will once more decide the economic power of those nations which are predominantly dependent on the import of natural resources. Moreover, it can be assumed that attacking transport routes will be a popular guerrilla tactic for opposing forces or even for some more aggressive business rivals.

Also, the other parts of the traditional national armed forces will want to be incorporated in this development, so they will try to increase their role as well as the strategic importance. For example, the Army will strive for a greater number of missions on the coast, and the Air Force, on the other hand, will carry out more missions with a necessity to fly over the sea. It is also highly expectable, that future military assets will be modular to allow participation at any naval operation, therefore both armies and air forces will develop to accommodate future off-shore operations. However, with regard to the outlined development, we believe it will be most important to start from the Navy and after the maritime force is adequate we should gradually transform all other existing structures according to the actual security needs.

Proposal for an Auction Mechanism Embedded in a New UN Resolution

To deal with the situations mentioned early in this paper we believe, the UN must adopt the auction-based deep-sea ownership mechanism and incorporate it in a new globally recognized UN´s resolution. Because international treaties have tendencies to be unfulfilled and often even ignored, we believe the UN has to create a new legally binding international order, which will affect every international actor regardless of their subjective opinion and point of origin. This new resolution ought to be globally recognized by governments, but its legality and legitimacy should not be entwined with the ratification procedures of national parliaments. Ratification procedures have tendencies to create small pockets of countries living on the edge of existing international orders ignoring what does not suit them and using only what they like. The new International Deep-Sea Mining Ownership Order should work in a similar way as an international monetary system, global stock-exchange market, world health organization, and global pandemic monitoring system, or international diplomatic protocols are working. All those examples have one in common, aside from membership in a corresponding organization (usually declared by a signature of the corresponding international treaty or by a memorandum about acknowledgment of the procedures), they all create an international order/system which is beneficial for all users. Sooner or later everyone has acknowledged the globally recognized procedures and corresponding order/system of mechanics slowly began to affect the whole World, regardless you are signatory country or not.

We believe this phenomenon will affect also our postulated international order established by a specific UN´s resolution which will create an auction mechanism for future possession of deep-sea territories and mining rights. At first, sovereign countries and other internationally recognized actors might decide to ignore such a mechanism, but it should be allowed to join in any time they wish to. Because meanwhile, they will risk that all good territories will be sold out, therefore the fear of losing global competitiveness will speed up the whole process.

In our system, acknowledgment of new international order for deep-sea mining will be created with a background of the auction where actors will be able to obtain deep-sea territories and rent/ purchase mining rights. Those who will recognize, respect and honor it, will be able to participate in the global auction. Others who will wish to stay aside will still be able to use their own Exclusive Economic Zones. Current United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea which took place between 1973 and 1982, will still apply. The biggest change will happen to sea-bed areas beyond existing zones and current ownership rights. Open ocean or so-called High Sea existing outside the Exclusive Economic Zone will continue to serve the common use of all states, including inland ones. But newly discovered resources located on seabed territories beyond EEZ will be auctioned. The winner of such auction will obtain mining, research, and territorial rights ergo complex ownership of those territories. Obtained territories will become autonomous globally recognized zones where only an owner will have a right to use all resources located inside designated borders. Territory owners will be also able to choose to rent their resources to others or allow others to sail through. In case the rich ore veins or fossil fuel reservoirs spread beyond owned territory, the owner will have a pre-emption to purchase adjacent territories to increase the zone of his activities and rights. If two owners will coexist too close to each other, the UN will have the ultimate decision-making monopoly to resolve the situation within a reasonable time horizon. Meanwhile, if resources or their transport undergo any disputes all participants will have to stop all mining operations or share all earnings equally with others, but bare cost by themselves. UN should also operate with some kind of "hard power" options to deal with the possible escalation of future conflicts. Problem is, that typical UN missions exist without a genuine effective mandate. It can be therefore assumed that in our proposed international order, the UN will have to address the operational capacities of existing military powers directly, ergo the further development of Navy capacities will correspond not only with the actual power over High Seas but it will increase the importance and influence of these well-equipped nations. Those with strong Navy will dominate among other UN members and other international actors.

We believe also Transnational Corporations should be able to participate in such auctions, but with one difference. They will have to purchase only a concession, a special charter to use the designated territory and all its natural resources for a designated time period. Because those TNC should not have a private army nor private armed maritime force, they will have to rely on the protection of existing Naval Forces of coastal states. Thus a fusion of private capital and national security will be created to accumulate deep-sea resources both cost-effectively and with a proper defense of all corresponding assets.

UN will have to create a special body within the existing UN´s organization system. This special branch will hold annual auctions for deep-sea territories and oversee the rentals of existing rights. We propose that global off-shore areas should be divided between Exclusive Economic Zones and clarified High Sea. The whole global High Sea area will be divided into equally big areas or so-called zones. For demarcation of the borders of these territorial zones, we can use submarine mountain range, deep-sea trenches, or even geometric shapes and nets such as a chessboard-like but hexagonal-shaped grid. In such a case, every hexagon will become an off-shore deep sea territory purchased or leased by an individual internationally recognized actor. The purchase price will be based on resource volumes and quantities discovered in this zone or by a specific pricing mechanism which should be further developed by the UN´s economists. Speaking of financial affairs, the UN (by principle) so far cannot earn profits but, it can use any monetary resources it obtained for purposes its branches need to fulfill. We believe the new special branch should use these newly accumulated funding for the following purposes:

• To create its own research and exploratory assets, which will be protected by signatory UN´s member states Navy? Those UN´s assets will conduct exploration of each individual hexagon-shaped area (zones) to evaluate such area for more precise pricing for the purposes of its future auction

• To monitor activities in already auctioned territories and to asses if they are conducted under the contractual framework and deal with any disputes that might occur

• To clean the global oceans and seas from plastic pollution and to help remove the negative effect of all off-shore mining

• Help to revitalize and clean any affected on-shore, an off-shore or coastal area suffering from any mining accidents, oil spill and naval conflicts

Discussion and Conclusion

Our research paper focused on the consequential security impacts of deep-sea mining with a special accent on the future role of Naval Forces. We have predicted the rise of the importance of Navy as well as changes in defense strategies which might occur due to modern technological development. There must be an increase in naval investments so that the growing role of maritime force can meet the needs of international deep-sea mining operations. At the same time the Navy must support Transnational Corporations in their deep-sea entrepreneurship but also ensure that they could not operate without the security provided by the Navy of the corresponding coastal state. At the end of our paper we have postulated an idea what could be done about future deep-sea mining to avoid territorial disputes and struggles over the ownership of resources and mining assets. We predict that this geopolitical situation will put immense pressure on the Naval Forces of every relevant coastal state. National Navy will become a crucial part of the global resource security policy. Thus, the new golden era of Naval Forces will start pretty soon. Therefore the aim of this paper was to describe the phenomenon of deep-sea mining with a focus on upcoming changes in the current and future role of traditional Naval Forces. The secondary goal of this paper was to postulate a new mechanism of how to deal with upcoming territorial struggles and mining rights disputes. We believe that the peaceful way how to avoid conflicts or possible resource wars is to develop a new UN resolution and recognize it worldwide.

References

1. Sharma R (2017) Deep-sea mining: Current status and future considerations. (1st ed) Springer 535.
2. Adascalitei Oana (2013) Exclusive economic zone-The concept of sui generis area and its implications for the legal order of the seas. Constanta Maritime University Annals 20: 187-190.
3. Armine Poghosyan (2017) The territorial conflict over the northern territories/kuril islands and security in the Asian-pacific region in the 21st century. International Scientific Conference Strategies XXI, Bucharest, Romania, pp: 89-96.
4. Xavier Furtado (1999) International law and the dispute over the Spratly Islands: Whither UNCLOS? Contemporary Southeast Asia 21: 386-404.
5. Kato Mihoko (2014) Japan and Russia at the beginning of the twenty-first century: New dimension to maritime security surrounding the Kuril Islands. UNISCI Discussion Papers 32: 205-214.
6. Anwar DF (2006) Resource issues and ocean governance in asia pacific: An Indonesian perspective. Contemporary Southeast Asia 28: 466-489.
7. Danae Azaria (2016) The scope and content of sovereign rights in relation to non-living resources in the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone. J Territorial Maritime Stud 3: 5-27.
8. Hurng-yu Chen (2016) Territorial Disputes in the south China sea under the san francisco peace treaty. Issues and Studies 50: 169-196.
9. Brian Wilson (2010) An avoidable maritime conflict: disputes regarding military activities in the exclusive economic zone. J Mar Law Comm 41: 421-437.
10. Christa N, Brunnschweiler, Erwin Bulte (2009) Natural resources and violent conflict: Resource abundance, dependence, and the onset of civil wars. Oxford Economic Papers 61: 651-674.
11. Bräuninger T, König T (2000) Making rules for governing global commons: The case of deep-sea mining. J Confl Resolut 44: 604-629.
12. Phoebe Okowa (2013) Sovereignty contests and the protection of natural resources in conflict zones. Current Leg Prob 66: 33-73.
13. Caselli F, Morelli M, Rohner D (2015) The geography of inter-state resource wars. The Quat J Economics 130: 267-315.
14. Daron Acemoglu D, Mikhail Golosov, Aleh Tsyvinski, Pierre Yared (2012) A dynamic theory of resource wars. The Quat J Economics 127: 283-331.
15. Humphreys Jasper (2012) Resource wars: Searching for a new definition. International Affairs 88: 1065-1082.
16. David Miller, Chris Miller (2001) Modern naval combat. London: Salamander 208.
17. Paul Niesen (2010) Aircraft carriers: A history of carrier aviation and its influence on world events. Air Space Pow J 24: 92.
18. Robert Jackson (2006) The encyclopedia of warships: From world war II to the present day. (1st ed) Thunder Bay Press 448.
19. Tim Schröde (2014) World Ocean Review 3. Sea-floor mining. Maribus gGmbH 10-163.