The Maroa Port Lease Negotiation
The Republic of Maroa is a small island state of 180,000 people whose economy depends on tourism and a deep-water port. Since 1971 it has leased the port to the naval forces of the larger neighbouring state of Kestrel. The lease expires in 14 months. The base hosts 1,200 Kestrel personnel and generates an annual payment equal to 8% of Maroa's national budget; Kestrel also patrols Maroa's exclusive economic zone, which is contested by fishing fleets from a third state. Maroa's government wants to renew but is demanding a 25-year term instead of the original 99 years, a 40% higher payment, and joint approval over new facilities. Opposition parties argue that any renewal concedes sovereignty, and 6,000 people signed a petition for a national referendum. Kestrel has hinted that without renewal it may reduce patrols, while a regional infrastructure bank offers a port loan that would take 20 years to repay. The cabinet must decide its negotiating position before the next summit.
1. Identify and analyse the main sources of power available to Maroa and Kestrel in this negotiation.
Read the worked answer
Kestrel's power is primarily material and relational. Its naval capability gives it the capacity to patrol Maroa's exclusive economic zone, which Maroa cannot easily replace; this creates dependence. Its economic offer is also significant, since 8% of Maroa's budget is at stake, and it can signal that patrols may be reduced. Maroa's power is less material but still real: it has legal sovereignty over the port, so Kestrel cannot simply stay without consent. Its strategic location and the contested fisheries give it bargaining leverage, and the petition and referendum demand give the government domestic legitimacy and a credible constraint. Maroa can also use issue linkage by tying renewal to higher rent and joint approval. The asymmetry is therefore not total: Kestrel has superior military and economic power, but Maroa has legal and normative power and can impose domestic ratification costs. A good answer would conclude that Maroa's best leverage is to convert its sovereignty into conditions rather than to refuse outright.
2. Evaluate the claim that renewing the lease is incompatible with Maroa's sovereignty.
Read the worked answer
The claim treats sovereignty as indivisible, but sovereignty is better understood as a bundle of rights: territorial control, legal authority, and practical autonomy. A 25-year lease with joint approval over new facilities and higher rent still transfers some control, but it is not the same as ceding sovereignty. Maroa would retain legal title and could set conditions, monitor compliance, and terminate under agreed terms. However, the claim has force if renewal entrenches dependence and gives Kestrel a permanent security role that shapes Maroa's foreign policy. The referendum demand matters because sovereignty also has a domestic legitimacy dimension: a lease imposed without public consent may be legal but politically contested. Therefore renewal is not inherently incompatible with sovereignty, but it becomes more problematic as duration, extraterritorial rights, and automatic renewal increase. The judgement depends on the terms, not on the bare fact of renewal.
3. Recommend a negotiating position for Maroa and justify it using at least two concepts from global politics.
Read the worked answer
A conditional renewal is the most defensible position. Maroa should offer a 25-year term, not 99, with a rent increase and a clause requiring joint approval for new facilities. It should also insist on an annual public report, a clear termination clause, and a referendum or parliamentary ratification to strengthen legitimacy. These conditions convert the lease into a regulated sovereignty arrangement rather than an open-ended concession. The fallback infrastructure loan is a useful bargaining chip but a weak substitute: a 20-year repayment burden could reduce fiscal space and does not replace the patrol capability in the short term. Maroa should therefore negotiate renewal while building an exit strategy, such as a regional coast guard arrangement. The main trade-off is security versus autonomy: refusing renewal maximises legal sovereignty but may increase immediate vulnerability, while unconditional renewal protects security but erodes autonomy. Conditioning the renewal balances the two.