El mar Rojo como teatro de fricción sistémica

Legal and Politico-Strategic Review Andrés Miguel Cosialls Ubach, “The Red Sea as a Theatre of Systemic Friction”, CODESEL Bulletin (Cadre of Defense and Security Law), Vol. 2, No. 7, February 2026 This article offers a dense and conceptually rigorous analysis of the Red Sea–Bab el-Mandeb maritime space as a zone of systemic friction within the contemporary international order. Rather than treating the attacks on commercial shipping as isolated security incidents, the author convincingly frames them as stress tests for the legal, strategic, and institutional architecture governing maritime security, global trade, and collective responses to non-state violence. From a legal perspective, the article is particularly strong in its interpretation of United Nations Security Council practice. The analysis of Resolution 2812 (2026) as a mechanism of “normative presence” rather than coercive escalation is doctrinally sound and analytically original. By emphasizing the Council’s decision to prolong reporting obligations without reopening the substantive debate on the authorization of force, the author highlights an often-overlooked governance technique: the use of procedural continuity to preserve agenda control, attribution capacity, and political pressure while avoiding divisive decisions. This reading situates the resolution within a broader pattern of cautious institutional management of high-risk maritime crises. The treatment of UNCLOS and the law of the sea is equally precise. The article clearly distinguishes between the reaffirmation of freedom of navigation and transit passage, on the one hand, and the absence of an explicit authorization of force, on the other. The recognition that states retain a right to defend their vessels against attack—within the limits of necessity and proportionality—is correctly framed as defensive self-protection, not as a mandate for generalized maritime enforcement. This distinction is crucial for understanding the legal boundaries within which naval operations in the Red Sea currently operate. Strategically, the article excels in conceptualizing Bab el-Mandeb as a chokepoint whose disruption generates global systemic effects. The author persuasively explains how relatively low-cost tactical actions—missiles, drones, unmanned surface vessels—produce cascading consequences across insurance markets, shipping routes, energy flows, and supply chains. The observation that, by 2026, shipping companies have shifted from avoidance to calibrated risk management (including escorted or selectively resumed transits) is particularly insightful, as it demonstrates how prolonged insecurity evolves into a managed but persistent condition rather than a resolved crisis. A central contribution of the article lies in its insistence on Yemen as the structural root of the Red Sea crisis. By linking maritime attacks to the arms embargo and enforcement regime established under Resolution 2216 (2015), the author correctly reframes the issue as a regionalized extension of a non-international armed conflict with internationalized dimensions. This approach prevents the analytical error of reducing the problem to maritime policing alone and instead situates it within a broader matrix of conflict management, arms control, and external sponsorship. From a governance standpoint, the discussion of multilevel operational ecosystems—involving the UN, the European Union, ad hoc coalitions, and coastal states—is particularly relevant for security law scholarship. The analysis of EUNAVFOR ASPIDES as a defensive, legitimacy-conscious operation illustrates the tension between operational effectiveness and perceived legitimacy, especially in a region where external military presence is politically sensitive. The article thus implicitly addresses one of the core dilemmas of contemporary security governance: how to protect global commons without triggering escalation or normative backlash. Overall, this contribution stands out as a theoretically informed and legally disciplined analysis that bridges international law, strategic studies, and institutional political science. It offers a compelling framework for understanding the Red Sea not merely as a battleground, but as a laboratory of systemic friction where legal norms, economic interdependence, and security practices are continuously tested. The article is highly relevant for scholars and practitioners concerned with maritime security, the law of the sea, and the governance of global chokepoints.