Dr. Hamad Kasasbeh

In the energy economy, a resource is valued not only by how much is produced, but by whether it can reach markets reliably and at a predictable cost. Disruption along maritime corridors raises shipping, insurance, and financing costs and increases uncertainty for producers, investors, and consumers. When these pressures persist, the cost of the route becomes part of the cost of energy itself.

Maritime corridor safety is therefore an element of regional competitiveness and trade stability, not merely a shipping issue.
The region’s economic interests converge clearly on this point. Producers need reliable export routes, ports need steady traffic, and transport and logistics sectors need conditions that can be planned around. Markets also require stable supplies and less exposure to sudden shocks. Ultimately, the people of the region bear the cost when higher transport and insurance expenses feed into food, goods, and energy prices and weigh on investment, growth, and employment.

This is the economic case for a regional authority for maritime corridor safety and energy security. Its purpose would not be to manage sovereignty or redistribute national powers, but to coordinate practical risk management. National jurisdictions would remain intact, while the authority would focus on information exchange, early warning, navigation safety, emergency response, and continuity of trade and energy flows. Coastal states would retain their established responsibilities, while regional states linked to the corridor, user states, and relevant stakeholders would participate in technical and economic cooperation.

The authority’s economic value would begin with reducing the cost of uncertainty. Shipping and insurance companies price risk not only according to actual incidents, but also according to how well those risks can be assessed and managed. Better information, clearer communication channels, and credible contingency plans can make risk more measurable. Risk premiums may not disappear, but they can become less volatile and more predictable, improving transport and financing conditions and strengthening investment appeal.

The authority would not need a large administrative structure at the outset. It could begin with an information and early-warning centre, direct channels for maritime incidents, periodic indicators on shipping and insurance risk, and contingency plans for maintaining traffic during disruption. Its work could also cover navigation safety, marine environmental protection, and the readiness of ports and alternative routes. Success would be measured in practical terms: faster response, shorter disruptions, better risk assessment, and greater stability in transport costs.

There is also a practical foundation for this approach. International maritime law provides room for cooperation on navigation safety, while international experience offers models of technical coordination among coastal states, users, and stakeholders without weakening national jurisdiction. The authority would not address trade disputes, sanctions regimes, or decisions governing energy exports; its mandate would remain focused on corridor safety, risk management, and continuity of navigation. This separation protects a shared economic interest without requiring every other issue to be resolved first.

The authority should begin with a limited and measurable scope and expand only as results justify it. One of the region’s most important energy corridors could provide a practical starting point, with cooperation extending gradually to other routes as the model proves its value. A focused institution that reduces risk and improves predictability is more useful than a large body with broad responsibilities from the outset. Confidence should be built through economic results rather than institutional size or the number of meetings held.

The potential benefits extend well beyond oil and gas. More stable maritime corridors support ports, shipping, logistics, trade, tourism, and investment, while helping to limit the transmission of disruption into commodity prices and supply chains. In a global economy where reliability increasingly shapes investment decisions, a region that manages transport risk effectively gains an additional competitive advantage alongside its resources, geographic position, and infrastructure. Maritime stability therefore becomes part of the business environment itself.

Ultimately, the countries of the region do not need to resolve every issue before cooperating on an economic interest that benefits them all. Safer maritime corridors mean more stable trade, more manageable risks, more predictable investment conditions, and more reliable supply chains. If a regional authority can turn maritime safety into structured economic cooperation, it would do more than protect the route; it would add value to everything that moves through it. A secure route to market is not simply a means of transporting wealth; it is part of the value of that wealth.