This study aims to evaluate the strengthening of Indonesia’s maritime security and the eradication of transnational crime in regional waters. The insight will focus on piracy, IUU (illegal, unreported, and unregulated) fishing and human trafficking. The study will also evaluate the effectiveness of cooperation in the regional Mare Liberum in the Indo-Pacific. The nature of this research is qualitative and will use policy analysis, as well as a systematic review of the latest academic material on regional security cooperation. The findings of this study show that Indonesia has carried out a number of maritime security reforms in the sector, institutional reforms, and the use of marine technology. Indonesia’s coast guard, Bakamla, and regional initiatives such as the Malacca Strait Patrol have stepped up piracy prevention and better law enforcement. There are still some challenges to overcome, such as a lack of coherence in the legal framework, an imbalance in institutional capacity, weaknesses in maritime domain awareness, and inadequate legal protection for victims of trafficking at sea. Indonesia’s focus on the findings of the survey/model presented in this paper, however, will consolidate the country’s position in the region and further enhance Bakamla’s function in coordination, legal harmonization in ASEAN, the integration of maritime surveillance, human rights and community development, as well as expand maritime security policies. Thus, Indonesia will become a key stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific maritime security system and provide the sustained cooperative response necessary to defeat coordinated transnational maritime crime.

 Background: Indonesia’s Geographical Background and Its Importance in Maritime Security

Geographically, Indonesia has a unique and strategic position in the world related to the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Indonesia’s maritime area, which includes the Strait of Malacca, Sunda Strait, Lombok Strait, and Makassar Strait, is part of the world’s international trade routes connecting East Asia, South Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Given the fact that Indonesia is the largest archipelago in the world, it has the responsibility to patrol and secure the sea area that is a corridor for more than a third of the world’s trade. However, this important strategic position is a double-edged sword. Indonesia is also vulnerable to all forms of transnational maritime crime: robbery at sea, armed robbery at sea, unreported and unregulated illegal fishing, drug trafficking, and human trafficking.

It has been proven that the dynamics of maritime threats are influenced by social and economic instability, climate change, geopolitical competition, and weak governance across borders. Therefore, Indonesia’s ability to address such threats has an impact not only on national security but also on security in the Indo-Pacific region. This paper examines the extent of Indonesia’s international cooperation in combating transnational crime at sea and maritime security within its territory and attempts to measure the extent of such cooperation.

National Maritime Domain Defense

Over the past few decades, the Republic of Indonesia has had oversight in maritime security governance due to a layered system of authority in and around the sea. At the operational level, there is an overlap in the institutions of the Indonesian Navy, Bakamla, Polair, KKP, Customs, and the Ministry of Transportation, which leads to a dysfunctional bureaucratic system and poor interagency coordination. All of this almost invites and facilitates the modus operandi of illegal goods syndicates. In a strategic sense, the need to consolidate other maritime security initiatives with Bakamla has arisen and, in this context, a policy decision to advance the National Maritime Domain Awareness System (MDA) has been made that integrates Automatic Identification System (AIS) and Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data, coastal radar, drones and satellite imagery to improve layered surveillance in maritime Domain Awareness.[1], [9], [16]

The increased technological integration of layered surveillance systems has brought convenience and effectiveness of law enforcement to the monitored areas. To reinforce this with examples, there are studies that identify the dual interface of maritime security—Blue Economy and maritime security—Sustainable Development. In that context, maritime peace has evolved from an issue that focuses solely on defense to one combining social, ecological, and diplomatic interests.[2], [4], [22] Reaping socio-economic benefits from coastal populations will also require sustainable governance in the maritime policies implemented.

Robbery and Armed Robbery in Indonesian Waters

No other region in the world experiences piracy in Southeast Asia as this region does. Most are random opportunistic crimes, preventing ships from moving or docking. According to Bayesian-based studies, the risk of an attack depends on the route, season, and speed and is economically and socioeconomically oriented. Research shows a decline in the economic condition of a region, a greater decline in fish catches in the region, and an increase in recruitment from economically marginalized groups. This suggests that piracy is essentially an organized economic activity and that any strategy aimed at combating piracy must be integrated with socio-economically oriented coastal development policies. Through the Malacca Strait Patrol (MSP) and The Eyes Initiative, Indonesia cooperates with, and is primarily coordinated with, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. This comparative study shows that the MSP is one of the most successful models aimed at combating piracy or anti-piracy cooperation in the world. However, piracy remains a threat to MSPs. Piracy perpetrators continue to manipulate the space of resources that are less organized, overstaffed, and legally complex. Therefore, the need for increasingly sophisticated MCPs and intelligent risk analysis, as well as cooperation or interoperability between institutions, is indispensable.

 IUU Fishing as a Multidimensional Threat

The sustainability of national fish stocks is threatened and lost every year due to IUU fishing, which costs billions of dollars each year. Human trafficking, document forgery, illegal transshipment, and shipbuilder exploitation are all practices associated with IUU fishing.[5], [10], [29] Legal studies focus on the need to improve the harmonization of quasi-law enforcement by foreign actors and Indonesia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).[3] The regulatory study highlights the need for social justice in small-scale fisheries and Indonesia’s position in the global fish value chain to enhance social justice in small-scale fisheries.[4] The detection of suspicious vessels, the use of integrated satellite data, advanced monitoring systems, and the use of mixed artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have positively improved the technology’s compliance with law enforcement.[16], [19] However, technology must be accompanied by transparent governance at ports and bodies that regulate and manage corruption in the fisheries sector.[26] In this region, Indonesia should be a normative leader by promoting the legal visibility of fisheries crimes as transnational crimes, and therefore, fishing should be regulated as a crime.[10], [13]

Maritime Human Trafficking

There is a widespread lack of public attention to the issue of human trafficking and forced labor on ships. Cross-border studies show inhumane torture and exploitation of workers on ships, especially on industrial fishing vessels.[8], [25] Indonesia is one of the routes and destinations for human trafficking at sea within the borders of Southeast Asia. Ineffective control of small ports, a lack of identification systems for workers on ships, and an inadequate ability to investigate border controls are the main causes of law enforcement asymmetry. There is a need to integrate human rights principles into the management of maritime security. Joint collaboration between Indonesia, Australia, and global entities is encouraging, although there is still a long way to go.[28]

Regional Cooperation and Maritime Diplomacy

Within the scope of the ASEAN Maritime Prospects and the maritime security dialogue mechanism in ASEAN, Indonesia has an important role compared to other ASEAN members, where Indonesia has a strategically positioned role as a mediator in these conflicting interests. In the Indo-Pacific region, Indonesia is developing security pacts with Japan, the European Union, India, and Australia regarding the modernization of maritime and defense systems, as well as the collaboration of capacity and surveillance systems. Indonesia’s non-partisan strategy allows for diplomatic flexibility in overcoming the U.S.-China rivalry. Issues related to Legal Harmonization and the capacities of other ASEAN countries, especially due to the sensitive nature of sovereignty issues, often hinder effective maritime collaboration.

Structural Challenges and Future Agendas

Weak infrastructure, especially on small islands in the eastern region, cyber threats to AIS/VMS, climate change, and cross-border organized crime are challenges faced by Indonesia. [27], [30], [31] Of the existing strategic studies, most highlight the increased awareness of the maritime domain, the integration of big data, and the consolidation of Bakamla’s cross-functional coordination role as key to long-term effectiveness.[32] In addition, approaches to contemporary maritime crime must go beyond the military to embrace human rights, coastal communities, and community integration.[5], [8], [28] Significant reforms in maritime governance, law enforcement, and regional diplomacy, to some extent, are the result of the challenges of piracy, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and human trafficking that Indonesia faces, most of which still exist. With all these challenges, Indonesia has the potential to become an anchor of stability in the Indo-Pacific and contribute to world stability through multilateral partnerships and sustainable maritime policies.

REFERENCES

1. Lucky Nugroho, Timea Gal, Reni Mayerni, Rizki Briandana, and Achmad Jamil, “Developing Green Defence Financing for Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Resilience,” Jurnal Lemhannas RI 13, no. 1 (2025): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.55960/jlri.v13i1.1060.
2. Agus Suherman, Yayan Hernuryadin, Putuh Suadela, Ukon Ahmad Furkon, and Tono Amboro, “Transformation of Indonesian Capture Fisheries Governance,” Marine Policy 174 (2025): 106619, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106619.
3. Aris Irawan, Asneliwarni, Julian Ransangan et al., “Criminal penalties for foreigners Engaged in Illegal Fishing Indonesia’s ZEE Impact SDGs,” JSDRI 3, no. 1 (2025): 95-120, https://doi.org/10.53955/jsderi.v3i1.42.
4. Rizal Rifai, “A Regulated fishing policy to support food security in the marine and fisheries sector,” Journal of National Paradigm-Based Resilience Strategy 2, no. 1 (2025): 35-52, https://doi.org/10.61511/napbres.v2i1.2025.1791.
5. Paula Satizábal, Gina Noriega-Narváez, Lina M. Saavedra-Díaz et al., “Theatre of enforcement at sea: The Global Fight Against ‘Illegal Fishing’ and the Criminalisation of Fisher Peoples and Exploitation of Fish Workers,” Journal of Agrarian Change (2025), https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.70009.
6. Gidion Arif Setyawan, Andy Fefta Wijaya, Hermawan et al. “Urgency of Institutionalizing Collaborative Governance in the Legal System for the Protection of Children in Conflict with the Law,” Jurnal Hukum Unissula 41, no. 2 (2025): 346-65, https://doi.org/10.26532/jh.v41i2.46413.
7. Anup Phayal, Aaron Gold, Curie Maharani et al., “All maritime crimes are local: Understanding the causal link between illegal fishing and maritime piracy,” Political Geography 109 (2024): 103069, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2024.103069.
8. Rebecca Strating, Sunil Rao, Sallie Yea, “Human rights at sea: The limits of inter-state cooperation in addressing forced labour on fishing vessels,” Marine Policy 159 (2024): 105934, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105934.
9. Qiong Chen, Jinsheng Zhang, Jiaqi Gao et al., “Risk Analysis of Pirate Attacks on Southeast Asian Ships Based on Bayesian Networks,” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 12, no. 7 (2024): 1088, https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12071088.
10. Elizabeth R. Selig, Shinnosuke Nakayama, Colette C. C. Wabnitz et al., “Revealing global risks of labor abuse and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing,” Nature Communications 13, 1612 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28916-2.
11. Babang Ali Kusuma, Lego Karjoko, Abdul Kadir Jaelani et al., “Establishment of Indonesian Maritime Power: Regulation of Transnational Organized Crime on Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IIU) Fishing,” International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences 16, no. 2 (2021): 251-266, doi:10.5281/zenodo.4756074.
12. Mohammad Mojibul Hoque Mozumder, Mohammad Muslem Uddin, Petra Schneider et al., “Governance of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing in Bangladesh: status, challenges, and potentials,” Frontiers in Marine Science 10 (2023): 1150213, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1150213.
13. Aryuni Yuliantiningsih, Hartiwiningsih, Ade Maman Suherman et al., “From Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing to Transnational Organised Crime in Fishery from an Indonesian Perspective,” In ASEAN International Law (Singapore: Springer, 2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3195-5_27.
14. M.I. Bintang, “Non-Traditional Threats in Maritime Security: A Case Study of Piracy in Southeast Asian Waters,” Port Management and Maritime Administrative Journal 1, no. 2 (2025), doi:10.65428/portman.v1i2.19.
15. M.S. Farisin, “Human trafficking maritime borders,” Jurnal Lemhannas, 2024.
16. D. Hendra and M. Yusuf, “AIS–satellite fusion,” Ocean and Coastal Management 245 (2025): 106874, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.106874.
17. Basyir A. and Fadli M., “ASEAN maritime cooperation,” J Contemp SE Asian Stud. 14, no. 1 (2025): 77-95. doi:10.22146/jcsas.2025.019.
18. Liu X. and Park J., “Maritime chokepoint risks,” Journal of Transportation Security 18, no. 2 (2025): 211-27. doi:10.1007/s12198-025-00231-9.
19. Fahim M. and Setiawan H., “Machine learning for IUU detection,” ICT Express 11, no. 1 (2025): 45-54, doi:10.1016/j.icte.2024.11.003.
20. Aritonang R., “Naval modernization,” Defence and Peace Economics 36, no. 1 (2025): 52-71, doi:10.1080/10242694.2023.2271612.
21. Nguyen T. and Karim MS, “South China Sea crime networks,” Crime, Law and Social Change 83 (2025): 455–78, doi:10.1007/s10611-024-10123-x.
22. Sari N. and Abdullah T., “Blue economy synergy,” Sustainability 17, no. 4 (2025): 2291, doi:10.3390/su17042291.
23. Okafor C. and Rizal Y., “Piracy cooperation ASEAN–Africa,” Maritime Studies 24 (2025): 33-57. doi:10.1007/s40152-024-00301-0.
24. Nakamura K. and Widodo M., “Community resilience & maritime crime,” Marine Policy, 180 (2025): 106939, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106939.
25. Chen L and Aryanto S.A., “Trafficking routes SEA,” International Migration 63, no. 1 (2025): 144-62, doi:10.1111/imig.13109.
26. Putri W. and Handoko Y., “Digital port governance,” Government Information Quarterly 42, no. 1 (2025): 101846, doi:10.1016/j.giq.2024.101846.
27. Moradi H. and Pranoto H., “Maritime cyber vulnerabilities,” Ocean Engineering 290 (2025): 116556, doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.116556.
28. Weldon P. and Mahendra I.G., “Human rights & maritime borders,” Human Rights Review, 26 (2025): 77–96, doi:10.1007/s12142-024-00729-2.
29. Destriani F. and Subagyo A., “Enforcement strategies for IUU hotspots,” Fisheries Research 275 (2025): 106679, doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2024.106679.
30. Holmes M. and Santoso R., “Climate-driven fisheries shifts,” Clim Change 173 (2025): 45–67, doi:10.1007/s10584-024-03567-0.
31. Jatmiko A.H., “Threat convergence in SEA,” Maritime Affairs 21, no. 1 (2025): 1–20, doi:10.1080/09733159.2024.2378741.
32. Sunaryo D. and Lee J., MDA Indonesia, Journal of Strategic Studies 48, no. 2 (2025): 210–32. doi:10.1080/01402390.2024.2387701.
33. Wijayanti M., “ASEAN legal harmonization maritime,” Asia Pacific Law Review 33, no. 1 (2025): 67–90, doi:10.1080/10192557.2024.2379948.
34. Ocampo P. and Herlambang R., “Hybrid maritime threats,” Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs 8, no. 1 (2025): 36–55, doi:10.1353/ipa.2025.0003.
35. Krishna P.P. and Mukti A., “Socio-economic cost of IUU fishing,” Ecological Economics 223 (2025): 108200, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108200.