The oceans can be a vector for threats to State and human security. One tool for promoting maritime security is shipping interdiction: stopping, searching and potentially arresting vessels at sea. After 2001 some expected that the restrictive law of shipping interdiction would come under pressure to change. This could occur either: through general recognition that, given changing collective security interests, the principle of exclusive flag state jurisdiction was becoming burdensome; or by major maritime powers pioneering new norms of customary international law. This article suggests that we have instead seen more continuity than change. It does so by considering both maritime interdiction “success stories” (counter-drug smuggling and counter-piracy) and “hard cases” (interdicting maritime migrants and weapons proliferation). Looking at the ‘hard cases’, changes to the law have been limited at best. The article instead predicts that future controversies are more likely to arise from disputes over conflicting uses of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In particular, it examines the Arctic Sunrise and MV Viginia G maritime interdiction cases as disputes over the extent of coastal State authority in the EEZ. It concludes with a number of practical observations about measures to “secure” the EEZ.