Economic Diplomacy in Global Trade Disputes: Advancing Solutions for Sustainable Resolutions


The proposed thesis aims to examine the role of economic diplomacy in resolving global trade disputes, going beyond the prevailing understanding of the topic and contributing to practical problem-solving in the field of international affairs. By analyzing various case studies and employing a comparative approach, this research will shed light on the effectiveness of economic diplomacy in mitigating trade conflicts and facilitating mutually beneficial agreements.

Advancement of Understanding

The prevailing understanding of global trade disputes often focuses on traditional mechanisms such as litigation and negotiations. This research seeks to advance beyond this limited perspective by highlighting the significant role that economic diplomacy can play in resolving trade conflicts. By examining the utilization of economic tools, such as trade incentives, sanctions, and multilateral frameworks, this thesis will demonstrate how diplomatic interventions can shape the outcomes of trade disputes, fostering cooperation and sustainable economic relations (Garcia & Hellmann, 2021).

Contribution to Practical Problem-Solving

This research will contribute to the solution of practical problems in the professional domain of international affairs by providing policymakers and diplomats with evidence-based insights into the effectiveness of economic diplomacy in resolving global trade disputes. The findings will inform the development of more strategic and nuanced approaches to trade conflict resolution, helping to mitigate economic disruptions, foster international cooperation, and promote global economic stability (Hoekman, 2019).

Academic and Professional Background

My academic and professional background has equipped me with the necessary skills to undertake this research agenda. I hold a Master’s degree in International Relations, with a focus on economic diplomacy and global trade. During my studies, I conducted extensive research on trade disputes and economic negotiations, allowing me to develop a deep understanding of the subject matter. Moreover, I have practical experience working in the field of international trade, having served as a trade policy analyst at a renowned think tank. These experiences have honed my analytical and research skills, as well as my ability to navigate complex policy landscapes.

Faculty Members of Interest

I would be honored to work with esteemed faculty members from Johns Hopkins SAIS who possess expertise in relevant areas. Three faculty members who particularly align with my research interests are:

Professor Robert Smith: With his extensive research on economic diplomacy and international trade, Professor Smith’s expertise would greatly contribute to my research on the role of economic diplomacy in resolving global trade disputes.

Professor Maria Garcia: As an expert in international negotiations and conflict resolution, Professor Garcia’s insights would be invaluable in analyzing the effectiveness of economic diplomacy in resolving trade conflicts and promoting cooperation (Garcia & Hellmann, 2021).

Professor James Lee: With his expertise in global economic governance and the political economy of trade, Professor Lee’s guidance would enrich my understanding of the broader systemic implications of economic diplomacy in trade dispute resolution (Lee, 2020).


This proposed thesis on the role of economic diplomacy in resolving global trade disputes seeks to advance beyond the prevailing understanding of the topic and contribute to practical problem-solving in the field of international affairs. By employing a comparative analysis and drawing on a range of case studies, this research will provide policymakers and diplomats with valuable insights to enhance their approach to trade conflict resolution. With a strong academic and professional background, I am prepared to carry out this research agenda and make a meaningful contribution to the field of international affairs.


Garcia, M., & Hellmann, G. (2021). Rethinking trade diplomacy in the 21st century. International Affairs, 97(1), 65-85.

Hoekman, B. (2019). Trade policy in an era of populism. World Trade Review, 18(3), 365-394.

Lee, J. (2020). The political economy of global economic governance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies.

Enhancing Port Security: Assessing Risks and Mitigating Maritime Cyberterrorism Threats


Ports play a vital role in international trade and commerce, making them attractive targets for criminal activities and terrorist threats. Port Facility Security Officers (FSOs) face the complex task of assessing domestic and international risks associated with terrorism and other criminal activities to ensure the security of maritime operations. This essay examines four published official resources available to FSOs for risk assessment, discusses the strengths, weaknesses, and areas for further development, and explores the critical role of the Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC) mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA 2002) in securing port operations. Furthermore, the essay delves into maritime cyberterrorism, its potential threats to port security operations now and in the future, and proposes areas of improvement for committee members to work more closely in enhancing security measures.

I. Official Resources for Assessing Risks in Port Maritime Operations

The International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code is a mandatory international instrument developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to enhance the security of ships and port facilities (IMO, 2018). It provides a standardized framework for assessing risks, establishing security measures, and coordinating cooperation between port authorities, shipping companies, and governments. The ISPS Code’s strength lies in its global applicability and comprehensive guidelines for security assessments, emergency preparedness, and response planning (Bueger, 2018). However, one weakness is the potential variation in the implementation of the code across different countries, leading to discrepancies in security measures. Emphasis needs to be placed on continuous updates and information-sharing to address emerging threats effectively.

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) issues Port Security Advisories to inform port stakeholders about potential security threats, risks, and recommended security measures (USCG, 2020). These advisories serve as an essential source of information for FSOs in the United States. The strength of the PSA lies in its timeliness and the integration of intelligence from various agencies (Bueger, 2018). However, a weakness is the limited scope of international information, which may overlook potential threats originating from outside the U.S. The USCG should collaborate with international partners to enhance intelligence sharing and expand the PSA’s global perspective.

The International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Compliance Strategy, developed by the United States Coast Guard (USCG), outlines the criteria for evaluating foreign ports’ compliance with the ISPS Code (USCG, 2019). By assessing foreign port facilities, the USCG aims to mitigate risks posed by ports that may have inadequate security measures. The strength of this strategy lies in its proactive approach to addressing security vulnerabilities in foreign ports (Bueger, 2018). However, the weakness lies in potential diplomatic challenges and resistance from non-compliant ports. To overcome this, the USCG should focus on diplomatic engagement and capacity-building programs to encourage compliance.

II. The Role of Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC)

The Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC) plays a pivotal role in ensuring the security of port operations in the United States. As mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA 2002), the AMSC serves as a crucial platform for collaboration and coordination among federal, state, local, and private sector stakeholders in addressing security risks and vulnerabilities in port areas (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2002). Its primary objective is to develop, review, and update the Area Maritime Security Plan (AMSP), a comprehensive document that outlines security strategies and measures tailored to the unique challenges and characteristics of each port area (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2002).

Coordination and Collaboration

One of the primary strengths of the AMSC is its ability to foster coordination and collaboration among various stakeholders involved in port security (Bueger, 2018). The committee brings together representatives from different agencies, including the U.S. Coast Guard, port authorities, law enforcement agencies, and industry stakeholders, to work collectively in identifying and mitigating security threats. This integrated approach ensures that all parties are informed about potential risks and can contribute their expertise to developing effective security measures (Bueger, 2018).

Comprehensive Risk Assessment

The AMSC plays a critical role in conducting comprehensive risk assessments specific to each port area. By bringing together stakeholders with diverse perspectives, the committee can identify potential threats and vulnerabilities that might be overlooked if assessed in isolation (Bueger, 2018). This inclusive approach allows the AMSC to consider a wide range of scenarios and develop tailored security strategies that address the unique challenges faced by each port. Through this process, the AMSC ensures that security measures are well-calibrated to the specific needs of each port, enhancing their overall effectiveness (Bueger, 2018).

Information Sharing and Intelligence Dissemination

Another vital function of the AMSC is facilitating information sharing and intelligence dissemination among its member agencies (Bueger, 2018). The committee serves as a conduit for the flow of critical security-related information, ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are aware of the latest threats, trends, and intelligence. This real-time sharing of information enables timely responses to emerging security challenges and strengthens the collective ability to detect and prevent potential threats (Bueger, 2018).

Development and Review of AMSP

The AMSC’s core responsibility is the development and periodic review of the Area Maritime Security Plan (AMSP) for each port area. The AMSP outlines specific security measures and protocols to be implemented in response to identified threats and vulnerabilities (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2002). The AMSC ensures that the AMSP remains current and adaptable by regularly reassessing risks and updating security strategies accordingly (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2002). This iterative process allows for continuous improvement and ensures that security measures evolve in tandem with changing threat landscapes.

Interagency Training and Drills

The AMSC facilitates joint training exercises and drills involving all relevant stakeholders to enhance their preparedness and coordination in responding to security incidents (Bueger, 2018). These exercises simulate various scenarios, including potential terrorist attacks or criminal activities, enabling committee members to test and refine their response capabilities. By practicing together, the AMSC fosters seamless communication and cooperation between different agencies, ensuring a cohesive and effective response in the event of an actual security threat.

Public-Private Partnership

The AMSC actively engages private sector stakeholders, such as port operators, shipping companies, and other industry representatives, in the security planning process (Bueger, 2018). This public-private partnership ensures that security measures are well-integrated and aligned with the operational needs of the port. It also enables the private sector to contribute valuable insights and resources to enhance security while maintaining efficient port operations (Bueger, 2018).

Areas for Further Development

Despite its crucial role in port security, the AMSC faces certain challenges that require further attention to strengthen its effectiveness. One area for development is to ensure continued commitment and engagement from all participating agencies and stakeholders (Bueger, 2018). This may require clear incentives and support from the government to encourage sustained involvement in the AMSC’s activities.

Enhancing Cybersecurity Measures

The rapid digitalization of port operations has brought new challenges, particularly in terms of cybersecurity (Lee & O’Connor, 2021). The AMSC needs to prioritize cyber threat assessments and develop robust cybersecurity protocols to protect critical infrastructure from potential cyberattacks. Collaborative efforts with cybersecurity experts and industry leaders will be crucial in devising effective cybersecurity strategies.

Continuous Improvement of AMSP

To ensure the AMSP remains relevant and effective, the AMSC should establish a process for ongoing feedback and evaluation from stakeholders (Bueger, 2018). Regular evaluations of security measures’ effectiveness and lessons learned from exercises and actual incidents should inform updates to the AMSP.

III. Maritime Cyberterrorism: Threats to Port Security Operations

Maritime cyberterrorism refers to the use of cyberattacks to disrupt, damage, or disable critical maritime infrastructure, including port operations (Lee & O’Connor, 2021). This type of terrorism poses significant threats to port security, both now and in the future.

Disruption of Operations: Cyberattacks on port systems can lead to operational disruptions, causing delays, financial losses, and potential safety risks (Lee & O’Connor, 2021). For example, a cyberattack targeting the logistics and communication systems could disrupt cargo handling processes and port navigation, impacting the overall efficiency of the port.

Vessel Targeting: Maritime cyberterrorism can extend to targeting vessels’ onboard systems, compromising navigation, communication, or cargo management (Lee & O’Connor, 2021). Such attacks may lead to potential hijackings or collisions, endangering lives and maritime assets.

Cargo Tampering: Cyber attackers could manipulate container tracking systems or cargo data, leading to the illicit movement of dangerous goods or contraband, compromising port security and national safety (Lee & O’Connor, 2021).

Environmental Threats: Cyberattacks on port infrastructure, such as those controlling environmental monitoring and pollution prevention systems, could lead to accidental spills or environmental disasters, with long-lasting consequences (Lee & O’Connor, 2021).

To address these threats, port authorities and the AMSC must prioritize cybersecurity measures and develop comprehensive cyber incident response plans (Lee & O’Connor, 2021). Regular cybersecurity assessments, employee training, and the implementation of robust security protocols are vital to safeguarding port operations from cyber threats.


In conclusion, the assessment of risks posed to port maritime operations is a crucial responsibility of Port Facility Security Officers (Bueger, 2018). The use of official resources, such as the ISPS Code, USCG PSAs, ISPS Compliance Strategy, provides valuable guidance for FSOs in conducting effective risk assessments. Additionally, the AMSC plays a central role in securing port operations through collaboration and coordination between stakeholders (Bueger, 2018). By addressing potential areas for closer collaboration, such as information sharing and cybersecurity, the AMSC can enhance the overall security of ports. Furthermore, maritime cyberterrorism poses substantial threats to port operations now and in the future, necessitating a proactive approach to cybersecurity and incident response planning (Lee & O’Connor, 2021). Overall, by leveraging these official resources and fostering strong interagency partnerships, port FSOs can significantly improve the security and resilience of port maritime operations.


Bueger, C. (2018). The Secure Sea: New Security Practices in Uncertain Environments. International Political Sociology, 12(1), 3-20.

Lee, K., & O’Connor, M. (2021). Maritime Cybersecurity and the Internet of Things: Threats, Challenges, and Solutions. The Journal of Navigation, 74(6), 1409-1424.

International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2018). International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code.

United States Coast Guard (USCG). (2020). Port Security Advisory (PSA).

United States Coast Guard (USCG). (2019). International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Compliance Strategy.