Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:55:52.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Southeast Asian Approaches to Maritime Boundaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2013

Tara DAVENPORT
Tara DAVENPORT*
Affiliation:
Centre for International Law at the National University of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From both a geographical and geopolitical perspective, Southeast Asia is a particularly interesting case-study for maritime delimitation. Despite the existence of significant obstacles to maritime boundary-making, including a complex coastal geography and a multitude of territorial and jurisdictional disputes, Southeast Asia has been described as the “scene of very active and innovative ocean boundary diplomacy”. The objective of this paper is to examine Southeast Asian approaches to maritime boundaries. First, it seeks to identify whether there are common trends and practices in Southeast Asian practice which have contributed to the high number of maritime boundaries concluded by Southeast Asian states. Second, the paper will explore the extent to which Southeast Asian practice has contributed to the normative development of international law on maritime delimitation. Third, the paper will discuss whether there are any lessons to be learned from Southeast Asian practice that can be used to settle unresolved maritime boundary issues in the region.

Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 309 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Research Fellow, Centre for International Law (CIL) at the National University of Singapore (NUS).

References

1. CAFLISCH, Lucius, “Maritime Boundaries, Delimitation” (1997) 3 Encyclopaedia of Public International Law 300 at 301 Google Scholar

2. CHURCHILL, R.R. and LOWE, A.V., The Law of the Sea, 3rd ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999) at 143–144 Google Scholar

3. PRESCOTT, Victor and SCHOFIELD, Clive, The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005) at 217 Google Scholar

4. Gulf of Maine Case, [1984] I.C.J. Rep. 246 at para. 157.

5. ANTUNES, Nuno Marques, Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation: Legal and Technical Aspects of a Political Process (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003) at 214−239 Google Scholar

6. These are the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, adopted 19 April 1958, 516 U.N.T.S 205 (entered into force 10 September 1964); the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, adopted 29 April 1958, 499 U.N.T.S 311 (entered into force 10 June 1964); the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted 10 December 1982, U.N.T.S 1833 (entered into force 16 November 1994) [UNCLOS].

7. Jonathan CHARNEY and Lewis ALEXANDER, eds., International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993) at xliii)Google Scholar

THIRLWAY, Hugh, “The Law and the Procedure of the International Court of Justice (Part Five)” (1993) 64 British Yearbook of International Law 1 Google Scholar

8. JOHNSTON, Douglas M. and VALENCIA, Mark, Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems: Status and Solutions (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. This will be dealt with in further detail in Part I.

10. Sam BATEMAN et al., “Good Order at Sea in Southeast Asia”, RSIS Policy Paper, April 2009 at 8Google Scholar

11. David A. COLSON and Robert W. SMITH, eds., International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. V (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005) at 3442Google Scholar

12. Sien, CHIA Lined., Southeast Asia Transformed: A Geography of Change (Singapore: ISEAS, 2003) at 1 Google Scholar

13. Ibid. The British ruled the former territories of Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and Northern Borneo; the Dutch in Indonesia; the Portugese in East Timor; the Spanish and Americans in the Philippines; and the French in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Only Thailand escaped colonial occupation.

14. ACHARYA, Amitav, The Making of Southeast Asia: International Relations of a Region (Singapore: ISEAS, 2012) at 150 Google Scholar

15. Ibid.

16. DESIERTO, Diane A., “Postcolonial International Law Discourses on Regional Developments in South and Southeast Asia” (2008) 36 International Journal of Legal Information 388 at 418–419 Google Scholar

17. ASEAN was formed through constitutive instruments such as the 1967 ASEAN Bangkok Declaration, Bangkok, Thailand, 8 August 1967 and the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, Indonesia, 24 February 1976.

18. Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand became members of ASEAN on 8 August 1967.

19. Chia, supra note 12 at 1Google Scholar

20. Brunei became a member of ASEAN on 8 January 1984, Vietnam on 28 July 1995, Laos and Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999.

21. “Indonesia supports East Timor ASEAN Membership bid” Jakarta Globe (3 March 2011). Online: 〈http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/archive/indonesia-supports-east-timor-asean-membership-bid/〉.

22. HUNT, Luke, “Papua New Guinea Eyes ASEAN” The Diplomat (9 November 2011)Google Scholar

23. As noted by Bateman et al., supra note 10 at 4.

24. Chia, supra note 12 at 5Google Scholar

25. Bateman et al., supra note 10 at 11. There are numerous straits used for international navigation in the region, including the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, the Lombok/Makassar Straits / Sunda Straits / Philippines Straits. There are also major ports such as Singapore, Port Klang, and Tanjung Pelapas in Malaysia, and Tanjong Priok in Indonesia.

26. UNCLOS, supra note 6. Cambodia signed UNCLOS on 1 July 1983 but has not ratified it. Brunei ratified UNCLOS on 5 November 1996, Indonesia on 3 February 1986, Laos on 5 June 1998, Malaysia on 14 October 1996, Myanmar on 21 May 1996, the Philippines on 8 May 1984, Singapore on 17 November 1994, Thailand on 15 May 2011, and Vietnam on 25 July 1994.

27. Papua New Guinea ratified UNCLOS on 14 January 1997 and Timor Leste acceded to UNCLOS on 8 January 2013.

28. Johnston and Valencia, supra note 8 at 50Google Scholar

29. PARK, Choon Ho, “Central Pacific and East Asian Maritime Boundaries” in Charney and Alexander, supra note 7 at 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. PRESCOTT, Victor and SCHOFIELD, Clive, “Undelimited Maritime Boundaries of the Asian Rim in the Pacific Ocean” in Shelagh FURNESS, ed., Maritime Briefing, Vol. 3 (Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit, 2001) at 1Google Scholar

31. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. Great Britain), Judgement of 30 August 1924, 1924 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 2 at 11.

32. Ibid., at 246.

33. KITTICHAISAREE, Kriangsak, The Law of the Sea and Maritime Boundary Delimitation in Southeast Asia (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1987) at 11 Google Scholar

34. Johnston and Valencia, supra note 8 at 50Google Scholar

35. Johnston and Valencia, ibid., at 50−58Google Scholar

36. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 3 at 429Google Scholar

37. Johnson and Valencia, supra note 8 at 51−52Google Scholar

38. The Philippines, for example, has previously asserted that the limits around the Philippines archipelago established by three treaties concluded by its former colonial master the US was its “international treaty limits” (see the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States, 10 December 1898, TS No. 343; Treaty Between Spain and the United States for the Cession of Outlying Islands for the Philippines, 7 November 1900, TS No. 345, and the Convention Between the United States and Great Britain Delimiting the Philippines Archipelago and the State of Borneo, 2 January 1930, TS No. 856). However, with the enactment of its Archipelagic Baselines Law in 2009, the Philippines appears to have retracted from this claim. Similarly, Cambodia and Vietnam also jointly claimed historic waters in 1982 (see Agreement on Historic Waters of Vietnam and Kampuchea, adopted on 7 July 1982), and China has also claimed some form of historic rights in the South China Sea.

39. Johnston and Valencia, supra note 8 at 57Google Scholar

40. Antunes, supra note 5 at 177Google Scholar

41. Charney and Alexander, supra note 7 at 915Google Scholar

42. Pursuant to UNCLOS, supra note 6, arts. 15, 74(1), 83(1).

43. Pursuant to UNCLOS, supra note 6, arts. 74(3), 83(3).

44. However, it should be noted that while this is the only maritime boundary dispute submitted to binding dispute settlement mechanisms, both Indonesia and Malaysia, as well as Singapore and Malaysia, have submitted their respective sovereignty disputes over Sipadan and Ligitan, as well as over Pedra Branca, to the International Court of Justice. Malaysia has also initiated arbitration proceedings against Singapore and requested provisional measures from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to curtail Singapore's land reclamation activities. The Philippines has also recently initiated arbitral proceedings against China over certain disputes in the South China Sea.

45. See Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Case No. 16, Judgment dated 14 March 2012, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), online ITLOS: 〈http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=108&L=1%2F〉.

46. McDorman, supra note 11 at 3349Google Scholar

47. These are: (i) Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Establishment of Boundary in the Northern Part of the Continental Shelf Adjacent to the Two Countries, 30 January 1974, Limits in the Seas No. 75 (1979), (entered into force 22 June 1978); (ii) Agreement Between the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the Delimitation of the Soviet-Korean National Border, 17 April 1985 (exact date of entry into force unknown); (iii) Agreement of the Economic and Continental Shelf Boundary Between the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 2 January 1986 (exact date of entry into force unknown); (iv) Agreement Between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Concerning the Regime of the Soviet-Korean State Frontier, 3 September 1990 (exact date of entry into force unknown).

48. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 3 at 218Google Scholar

49. Antunes, supra note 5 at 180Google Scholar

50. ROTHWELL, Donald and STEPHENS, Tim, The International Law of the Sea (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010) at 407–408 Google Scholar

51. KAYE, Stuart, “The Use of Multiple Boundaries in Maritime Boundary Delimitation and Practice” (1998) 19 Australian Yearbook of International Law 49 at 58 Google Scholar

52. Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), (1982) I.C.J Reports 18 at para. 232.

53. Kaye, supra note 51 at 58Google Scholar

54. There is also a Protected Zone enclosure which straddles the seabed jurisdiction line and surrounds several islands off Australia and Papua New Guinea which is established to protect the “traditional way of life and livelihood of the traditional inhabitants including their traditional fishing and free movement”, and also to protect and preserve the marine environment: 1978 Australia-Papua New Guinea Delimitation (Torres Strait) (No. 13 in Table 1), art. 10.

55. Ibid., art. 4(1).

56. Ibid., arts. 4(2), 1(1)(b).

57. Jonathan CHARNEY and Lewis ALEXANDER, eds., International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. II (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993) at 1229Google Scholar

58. The agreement is not in force yet, reportedly because it contains references to the 1989 Timor Gap Treaty which has now been replaced by the 2002 Timor Sea Treaty between Australia and East Timor.

59. UNCLOS, supra note 6, art. 5.

60. Ibid., art. 7.

61. UNCLOS, supra note 6, art. 47.

62. SCHOFIELD, Clive, “Departures from the Coast: Trends in the Application of Territorial Sea Baselines under the Law of the Sea Convention” (2012) 27 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 723 at 729 Google Scholar

63. SOHN, Louis B., “Baseline Considerations” in Charney and Alexander, supra note 7 at 154−155Google Scholar

64. This is because such a determination would require charts of a scale and accuracy adequate to ascertain the exact relationship of the boundary to the parties’ straight baselines: ibid., at 156−7.

65. Ibid., at 157.

66. Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), [2009] I.C.J Rep. 61 at para. 137.

67. Ibid.

68. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), [2001] I.C.J Rep. 40 at para. 212.

69. ROACH, J. Ashley and SMITH, Robert W., United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims, 2nd ed. (Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International, 1996) at 17 Google Scholar

70. Council of the State Decree, 31 July 1982.

71. While Malaysia has not formally claimed straight baselines, Malaysia issued a map in 1979 (New Map Showing the Territorial Waters and Continental Shelf Boundaries of Malaysia 1979) which suggests that it has employed a system of straight baselines arguably inconsistent with Article 7 of UNCLOS. While this has not been subject to objections from other states, “it appears that this has more to do with the fact that they have not been officially announced and publicized rather than because they necessarily meet the criteria set out in UNCLOS Article 7”. See Sam BATEMAN and Clive SCHOFIELD, “State Practice Regarding Straight Baselines in East Asia - Legal, Technical and Political Issues in a Changing Environment”, Paper Presented at Difficulties in Implementing the Provisions of UNCLOS, organized by the Advisory Board on the Law of the Sea (ABLOS), Monaco, 16–17 October 2008, online: University of New South Wales 〈http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS08Folder/Session7-Paper1-Bateman.pdf〉.

72. Bateman and Schofield, supra note 71Google Scholar

73. Bateman and Schofield, supra note 71Google Scholar

74. Bateman and Schofield, supra note 71Google Scholar

75. Vietnam claimed straight baselines in 1977, which has been described as particularly radical and far from the requirements established in art. 7 of UNCLOS. Vietnam's claims have been subject to both US and Thai protests: ibid.

76. Archipelagic baselines and archipelagic waters were accepted in Part V of UNCLOS, supra note 6.

77. Charney and Alexander, supra note 57 at 1022Google Scholar

78. “Limits in the Seas No. 1, Continental Shelf Boundary: Indonesia and Malaysia” US Geographer (21 January 1970). Online: 〈http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/limitsinseas/ls001.pdf〉.

79. Under art. 4 of the 1958 Territorial Seas Convention, only states whose “coastline is deeply indented and cut into” or which have “a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity” can draw straight baselines. Malaysia had acceded to the Territorial Seas Convention on 21 December 1960.

80. PRESCOTT, Victor, “Indonesia's Maritime Claims and Outstanding Delimitation Problems” (Winter 1995–1996) IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin at 94−95Google Scholar

81. BERNARD, Leonardo, “Whose Side Is It On? The Boundaries Dispute in the North Malacca Strait” (2012) 9 Indonesian Journal of International Law 381 at 388 Google Scholar

HALLER-TROST, R., The Contested Maritime and Territorial Boundaries of Malaysia: An International Law Perspective (London: Kluwer Law International, 1998) at 36 Google Scholar

82. Bernard, supra note 81Google Scholar

83. Colson and Smith, supra note 11 at 3750Google Scholar

84. Keyuan, ZOU, “The Sino-Vietnamese Agreement on Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Gulf of Tonkin” (2005) 36 Ocean Development and International Law 13 at 14 Google Scholar

85. NOSSUM, Johan Henrik, “What Vietnam Could Gain from Redrawing its Baselines” (Winter 2001–2002) IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin at 103Google Scholar

86. Churchill and Lowe, supra note 2 at 191Google Scholar

87. Ibid.

88. Bangladesh/Myanmar Dispute, supra note 45 at para. 184.

89. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, [1969] I.C.J Rep. 3; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/US), [1984] I.C.J Rep. 246; Tunisia/Libya Case, supra note 52; Continental Shelf (Libya v. Malta), [1985] I.C.J Rep. 13; Guinea/Guinea-Bissau Maritime Delimitation Case, Decision of 14 February 1985, 25 I.L.M 252 (1986); St Pierre and Miquelon Case, 31 I.L.M (1992).

90. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 3 at 221Google Scholar

91. St Pierre and Miquelon Case, supra note 89 at para. 38.

92. Tunisia/Libya Case, supra note 52 at para. 110.

93. TANAKA, Yoshifumi, “Reflections on Maritime Delimitation in the Nicaragua/Honduras Case”, Paper Presented at the International Law Association British Branch, 5 March 2008Google Scholar

94. Qatar/Bahrain, supra note 68 at para. 231.

95. Cameroon/Nigeria, supra note 90 at para. 228.

96. UNCLOS, supra note 6, art. 15 (emphasis added).

97. Tanaka, supra note 93 at para. 229Google Scholar

98. Bangladesh/Myanmar, supra note 45 at para. 229.

99. See, for example, Arbitration between Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, Relating to the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf Between Them (Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago), Award, (2006) 45 I.L.M. 798 at para. 242.

100. Romania/Ukraine, supra note 66 at para. 115−22.

101. These are the 1971 Indonesia-Australia (on behalf of Papua New Guinea) Continental Shelf Delimitation (Arafura Sea) (No. 3 in Table 1); 1971 Indonesia-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Straits of Malacca and Andaman Sea) (No. 4 in Table 1); 1973 Indonesia-Australia (on behalf of Papua New Guinea) Delimitation (Arafura Sea) (No. 7 in Table 1); 1974 Indonesia-India Continental Shelf Delimitation (Andaman Sea) (No. 9 in Table 1); 1977 Indonesia-India Continental Shelf Delimitation (Andaman Sea) (No. 11 in Table 1); 1978 India-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Andaman Sea) (No. 12 in Table 1); 1979 Malaysia-Thailand Territorial Sea Delimitation (Straits of Malacca and Gulf of Thailand) (No. 15 in Table 1); 1979 Malaysia-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Gulf of Thailand) (No. 16 in Table 1); 1980 Myanmar-Thailand Delimitation (Andaman Sea) (No. 17 in Table 1); 1980 Indonesia-Papua New Guinea Delimitation (Pacific Ocean) (No. 18 in Table 1); 1993 India-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Andaman Sea) (No. 21 in Table 1); 1993 India-Myanmar-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Andaman Sea) (No. 22 in Table 1); 1995 Malaysia (Johor)-Singapore Territorial Waters Delimitation (Johor Straits) (No. 23 in Table 1); 1997 Australia-Indonesia Delimitation (Timor Sea) (No. 24 in Table 1); 1997 Thailand-Vietnam Delimitation (Gulf of Thailand) (No. 25 in Table 1).

102. Park, supra note 29 at 301Google Scholar

103. At least twelve Delimitation Agreements do not use a strict equidistance line. These are the 1969 Indonesia-Malaysia Continental Shelf Delimitation (Straits of Malacca and South China Sea) (No. 1 in Table 1); 1970 Indonesia-Malaysia Territorial Sea Delimitation (Straits of Malacca) (No. 2 in Table 1); 1971 Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Straits of Malacca) (No. 5 in Table 1); 1972 Indonesia-Australia Continental Shelf Delimitation (Timor Sea and Arafura Sea) (No. 6 in Table 1); 1973 Indonesia-Singapore Territorial Sea Delimitation (Straits of Malacca) (No. 8 in Table 1); 1975 Indonesia-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Andaman Sea) (No. 10 in Table 1); 1978 Australia-Papua New Guinea Delimitation (Torres Strait) (No. 13 in Table 1); 1978 Indonesia-India-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Andaman Sea) (No. 14 in Table 1); 1981 Indonesia-Australia Provisional Fisheries Delimitation (Timor Sea) (No. 19 in Table 1); 1986 Myanmar-India Delimitation (Andaman Sea, Coco Channel, and Bay of Bengal) (No. 20 in Table 1); 2000 China-Vietnam Delimitation (Gulf of Tonkin) (No. 26 in Table 1); 2003 Indonesia-Vietnam Continental Shelf Delimitation (South China Sea) (No. 27 in Table 1).

104. This was recognized in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, supra note 89.

105. Libya/Malta, supra note 89.

106. HIGHET, Keith, “The Use of Geophysical Factors in the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries” in Charney and Alexander, supra note 7, 167Google Scholar

107. Charney and Alexander, supra note 7 at 1049Google Scholar

108. Ibid., at 1051.

109. Ibid.

110. Charney and Alexander, supra note 57 at 1465Google Scholar

111. Ibid., at 1468.

112. Ibid., at 1377.

113. Ibid.

114. Ibid., at 1383.

115. Ibid., at 1379.

116. UNCLOS, supra note 6, arts. 121(1), 121(2).

117. Ibid., art. 121(3).

118. There has been no authoritative interpretation by international courts and tribunals of what is meant by “sustaining human habitation and an economic life of its own”.

119. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 3 at 248−249Google Scholar

120. Rothwell and Stephens, supra note 50 at 405Google Scholar

121. Charney and Alexander, supra note 7 at 1019Google Scholar

122. Indonesia is believed to have conceded to Malaysian claims to enlist Malaysian support for its archipelagic claims: ibid., at 1022.

123. Charney and Alexander, supra note 57 at 1457Google Scholar

124. Ibid.

125. Ibid., at 1334.

126. Ibid., at 1335.

127. Ibid., at 1329.

128. Ibid., at 1332.

129. Ibid., at 1330.

130. Ibid.

131. SCHOFIELD, Clive, “Unlocking the Seabed Resources of the Gulf of Thailand” (2007) 29 Contemporary Southeast Asia 286 at 302 Google Scholar

132. Jonathan CHARNEY and Robert SMITH, eds., International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. IV (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002) at 2687Google Scholar

133. Ibid.

134. Ibid., at 2689.

135. Colson and Smith, supra note 11 at 3743Google Scholar

136. Ibid., at 3749−50.

137. Ibid., at 3753.

138. David COLSON and Robert SMITH, eds., International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. VI (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2011) at 4308Google Scholar

139. Ibid.

140. Ibid., at 4310.

141. Ibid.

142. Ibid.

143. See, for example, art. IV of the 1969 Indonesia-Malaysia Delimitation (Straits of Malacca and South China Sea) (No. 1 in Table 1); art. III of the 1974 Indonesia-India Continental Shelf Delimitation (Andaman Sea) (No. 9 in Table 1); art. II of the 1975 Indonesia-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Andaman Sea) (No. 10 in Table 1); art. 7 of the 2000 China-Vietnam Delimitation (Gulf of Tonkin) (No. 26 in Table 1); and art. 4 of the 2003 Indonesia-Vietnam Continental Shelf (South China Sea) (No. 27 in Table 1).

144. Art. IV, 1979 Malaysia-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Gulf of Thailand) (No. 16 in Table 1).

145. Zou, supra note 84 at 16Google Scholar

146. SARAVANAMUTTU, Johan, “Malaysia's Lucrative Approach to Joint Development in Troubled Seas” Opinion Asia (16 May 2010)Google Scholar

147. Ibid.

148. Art. 3, 2003 Indonesia-Vietnam Continental Shelf Delimitation (South China Sea) (No. 27 in Table 1).

149. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 3 at 217Google Scholar

150. KWIATKOWSKA, Barbara, “Economic and Environmental Considerations in Maritime Boundary Delimitation” in Charney and Alexander, supra note 7 at 91Google Scholar

151. McDorman, supra note 11 at 3440Google Scholar

152. Kwiatkowska, supra note 150 at 92Google Scholar

153. Zou, supra note 84 at 17−18Google Scholar

154. The potential for oil and gas north of the Natuna Islands was an important factor in the reaching of the 2003 Indonesia-Vietnam Continental Shelf Delimitation, and the seabed areas around the Natunas have proven to hold substantial reserves of commercially recoverable hydrocarbons.

155. BUSZYNSKI, Leszek and ISKANDAR, Sazlan, “Maritime Claims and Energy Cooperation in the South China Sea” (1 April 2007) 29 Contemporary South East Asia 143–171Google Scholar

Saravanamuttu, supra note 146Google Scholar

156. Charney and Alexander, supra note 57 at 1229−1236Google Scholar

157. Zou, supra note 84 at 16−18Google Scholar

158. See 1969 Indonesia-Malaysia Continental Shelf Delimitation (Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea) (No. 1 in Table 1); 1970 Indonesia-Malaysia Territorial Sea Delimitation (Straits of Malacca) (No. 2 in Table 1); 1971 Indonesia-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Straits of Malacca and Andaman Sea) (No. 4 in Table 1); 1971 Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Straits of Malacca) (No. 5 in Table 1); 1973 Indonesia-Singapore Territorial Sea Delimitation (Straits of Malacca) (No. 8 in Table 1); 1979 Malaysia-Thailand Territorial Sea Delimitation (Straits of Malacca and Gulf of Thailand) (No. 15 in Table 1); and 2009 Indonesia-Singapore Territorial Sea Delimitation (Singapore Strait) (No. 28 in Table 1).

159. Charney and Alexander, supra note 7 at 1020Google Scholar

160. McDorman, supra note 11 at 3442Google Scholar

161. Johnston and Valencia, supra note 8 at 50Google Scholar

162. Charney and Smith, supra note 132 at 2684−2685Google Scholar

163. Zou, supra note 84Google Scholar

164. Charney and Alexander, supra note 57 at 1196Google Scholar

165. Djuanda Declaration, 13 December 1957.

166. Haller-Trost, supra note 81 at 24Google Scholar

167. UNCLOS, supra note 6, arts. 74(3), 83(3) (emphasis added).

168. Guyana/Suriname Arbitration, UN Law of the Sea Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, Award of 17 September 2007, at para. 460, online: Permanent Court of Arbitration 〈http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/Guyana-Suriname%20Award.pdf〉.

169. Ibid.

170. See, generally, ss. 3.3–3.7 of Ben MILLIGAN, Legal and Policy Options for the Provisional Joint Management of Maritime Spaces Subject to Overlapping Jurisdictional Claims, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Woollongong.

171. Ibid.

172. FOX, Hazeled., Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas: A Model Agreement for States with Explanatory Commentary (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1989) at 43 Google Scholar

173. OKAFOR, Chidinma Bernadine, “Joint Development: An Alternative Legal Approach to Oil and Gas Exploitation in the Nigeria-Cameroon Maritime Boundary Dispute?” (2006) 21 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 489 at 495 Google Scholar

174. Guyana v. Suriname, supra note 168 at 463.

175. North Sea Continental Shelf Sea Cases, supra note 89 at para. 99.

176. ONG, David, “Joint Development of Common Offshore Oil and Gas Deposits: ‘Mere’ State Practice or Customary International Law?” (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 771 at 787 Google Scholar

177. The Government of the State of Eritrea v. The Government of the Republic of Yemen (1999), 119 I.L.R. at 417, (1999), Award Of The Arbitral Tribunal In The Second Stage Of The Proceedings (Maritime Delimitation), online: PCA-CPA 〈http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/EY%20Phase%20II.PDF〉.

178. See 1979 Malaysia-Thailand Continental Shelf Delimitation (Gulf of Thailand) (No. 16 in Table 1).

179. Schofield, supra note 131 at 290Google Scholar

180. It should be borne in mind that negotiations of UNCLOS were going on at this point in time and the exact effect of islands in generating maritime zones or their effect in maritime delimitation was not clear.

181. Schofield, supra note 131 at 302Google Scholar

182. Ibid.

183. Ibid., at 303.

184. Daniel J. DZUREK, “Maritime Agreements and Oil Exploration in the Gulf of Thailand” in Gerald BAKE et al., eds., Boundaries and Energy: Problems and Prospects (London: Kluwer Law International, 1998) at 177 Google Scholar

185. Swee Guan LEE, “Petroleum Development Area Timor Sea”, online: GEOExpro 〈http://www.geoexpro.com/exploration/timor-sea/〉.

186. ONG, David M., “The 1979 and 1990 Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Agreements: A Model for International Legal Co-operation in Common Offshore Petroleum Deposits?” (1999) 14 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 207 at 225 Google Scholar

187. BERGIN, Anthony, “The Australian-Indonesia Timor Gap Maritime Boundary Agreement” (1990) 5 International Journal of Estuarine and Coastal Law 383 at 384 Google Scholar

188. Thao, NGUYEN Hong, “Joint Development in the Gulf of Thailand” (1992) IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin (Autumn) at 81Google Scholar

189. Ibid.

190. Thomas MENSAH, “Joint Development Zones as an Alternative Dispute Settlement Approach in Maritime Boundary Delimitation” in Ranier LAGONI and Daniel VIGNES, eds., Maritime Delimitation (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006) 143 at 149 Google Scholar

191. Nguyen, supra note 188 at 82Google Scholar

192. For example, the 2002 Australia-East Timor Provisional Arrangement, art. 11 of the 2002 Timor Sea Treaty, provides that Australia shall facilitate as a matter of priority training and employment opportunities for East Timorese nationals and permanent representatives.

193. Schofield, supra note 131 at 293Google Scholar

194. Jonathan CHARNEY and Lewis ALEXANDER, eds., International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. III (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998) at 2336Google Scholar

195. KOSITCHOETETHANA, Boonsong, “Tearing up MoU on JDA is so Wrong” Bangkok Post (20 November 2009)Google Scholar

196. See, for example, the 1982 Cambodia-Vietnam Provisional Arrangement (No. 31 in Table 1); the 1999 Malaysia-Vietnam-Thailand Provisional Arrangement (Gulf of Thailand) (No. 34 in Table 1); the 2001 Cambodia-Thailand Provisional Arrangement (No. 37 in Table 1); and the 2005 China-Vietnam-Philippines Provisional Arrangement (No. 38 in Table 1).

197. The 1979/1990 Malaysia-Thailand Provisional Arrangement (No. 30 in Table 1); the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Provisional Arrangement (No. 32 in Table 1); the 1992 Malaysia-Vietnam Provisional Arrangement (No. 33 in Table 1); and the 2002 Australia-East Timor Provisional Arrangement (No. 35 in Table 1).

198. See, for example, the 1979/1990 Malaysia-Thailand Provisional Arrangement (No. 30 in Table 1); and the 1992 Malaysia-Vietnam Provisional Arrangement (No. 33 in Table 1).

199. Schofield, supra note 131 at 30Google Scholar

200. KAYE, Stuart, “The Timor Gap Treaty: Creative Solutions and International Conflict” (1994) 16 Sydney Law Review 72 at 79 Google Scholar

201. Ibid., at 80. Kaye suggests that the reason for the disparity in the tax revenues in Indonesia's favour is due to several reasons. First, the fact that Indonesia had a stronger position on maritime delimitation and needed a greater incentive for participation played a role in Indonesia having to allocate a lower share of its revenue in Area C. Second was the fact that Area B under Australia's control was larger than Area C under Indonesia's control and thus, while Australia would be surrendering a greater share of its tax revenue, the size of that revenue would be far larger than Indonesia's tax return from Area C.

202. The north boundary of Area A reflects Australia's position with regard to where it believes a permanent boundary should be established, and the south boundary of Area A indicates Indonesia's view of the seabed boundary, based on an approximate median line between Australia and Indonesia: ibid., at 81.

203. Ibid.

204. Ong, supra note 186 at 230Google Scholar

205. BERCOVITCH, Jacob and JACKSON, Richard, Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-First Century: Principles, Methods and Approaches (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 2009)Google Scholar

Hasjim DJALAL and Ian TOWNSEND-GAULT, “Preventive Diplomacy: Managing Potential Conflicts in the South China Sea” in Chester A. CROCKER et al., eds., Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World (Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press, 1999)Google Scholar

206. Djalal and Townsend-Gault, supra note 205 at 107Google Scholar

207. ASEAN and China are now attempting to negotiate a code of conduct in the South China Sea: see “ASEAN Welcomes Start of South China Sea Code of Conduct Talks” Channel NewsAsia (30 June 2013), online: Channel NewsAsia 〈http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/asean-welcomes-start-of/729504.html〉.

208. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Malaysia in Respect of the Common Guidelines Concerning Treatment of Fishermen by Maritime Law Enforcement Agencies of the Republic of Indonesia and Malaysia, 27 January 2012.

209. I Made Andi ARSANA, “Indonesia-Malaysia Deal Is Good News for Fishermen” Jakarta Post, 30 April 2012. Online: 〈http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/04/30/indonesia-malaysia-deal-good-news-fishermen.html〉.

210. Ibid.

211. For example, states can come to a special agreement to refer their disputes to an arbitral tribunal or to the ICJ (art. 36(1), ICJ Statute).

212. UNCLOS, supra note 6, art. 286.

213. Ibid., art. 298(1).

214. Ibid.

215. KITTICHAISAREE, Kriangsak, The Law of the Sea and Maritime Boundary Delimitation in Southeast Asia (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1987) at 103 Google Scholar

216. Ibid., at 104.

217. Ibid., at 103.

218. See statement by Thailand dated 15 May 2011 on the Ratification of UNCLOS, online: 〈http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm#Thailand%20Upon%20ratificatio〉.

219. Grisbadarna (Norway v. Sweden), (1910) A.J.I.L. 226; North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (1969), supra note 89; Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration (France v. United Kingdom) (1977), 18 I.L.M. (1979) at 397–494; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case, [1978] I.C.J. Rep. 3; Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf Case (1982), supra note 52; Gulf of Maine Case (1984), supra note 4; Libya/Malta Continental Shelf Cases (1985), supra note 89; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua Intervening), [1992] I.C.J. Rep. 351; St Pierre and Miquelon Case (1992), supra note 89; Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Area Between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), [1993] I.C.J. Rep. 38; Guinea-Bissau/Senegal Case (1985), supra note 89; Eritrea/Yemen Arbitral Award (1999), supra note 177; Qatar/Bahrain Case (2001), supra note 68; Cameroon/Nigeria Case (2002), supra note 90; Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago (2006) 45 I.L.M. 798; Guyana/Suriname (2007), supra note 168; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 2007 at 659; Bangladesh/Myanmar (2012), supra note 45; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, 19 November 2012. There are also several pending maritime delimitation cases: Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) (Peru initiated proceedings in the ICJ against Chile in 2008 but Judgment has not been issued); Croatia/Slovenia (On 4 November 2009, Croatia and Slovenia agreed to submit their territorial and maritime dispute to arbitration); Bangladesh/India (Bangladesh initiated arbitral proceedings under Annex VII of UNCLOS).

220. “Bangladesh and Myanmar Give ITLOS its First Maritime Boundary Case” IBRU News (21 December 2009), online: Durham University 〈http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/news/ibru_news/?itemno=9202〉. It has been described as “remarkable” that Bangladesh chose ITLOS instead of the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal or the ICJ, both of which have experience in maritime delimitation disputes. It is said that the consensus between Myanmar and Bangladesh is due to the “tribunal's emphasis on and ability to provide expedience”, which is partly attributable to the reduction of disputes over arbitrators, which can delay proceedings: see Jared BISSINGER, “The Maritime Boundary Dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar: Motivations, Potential Solutions, and Implications” (July 2010) 10 Asia Policy 103−42 at 130.

221. Bissinger, supra note 220 at 107Google Scholar

222. Ibid., at 113−17.

223. Ibid., at 129.

224. Ibid., at 107.

225. TRIGGS, Gillian, “Confucius and Consensus: International Law in the Asian Pacific” (1997) 21 Melbourne University Law Review 650 at 675 Google Scholar

226. WOON, Walter, “Dispute Settlement in ASEAN” (17 October 2011)Google Scholar

227. GOH, Gillian, “The ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and ASEAN's Role in Conflict Management” (2003) 3 Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs 113 at 114 Google Scholar

228. Manohar SARIN, “The Asian-African States and the Development of International Law” in Frederick SNYDER and Surakiart SATHIRATHAI, eds., Third World Attitudes Toward International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987)Google Scholar

229. Triggs, supra note 225 at 659Google Scholar

230. This obligation to negotiate in good faith was succinctly put by the ICJ in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 3, para. 86 (a):

…the parties are under an obligation to enter into negotiations with a view to arriving at an agreement and not merely to go through a formal process of negotiation as a sort of prior condition for the automatic application of a certain method of delimitation in the absence of agreement; they are under an obligation so to conduct themselves that the negotiations are meaningful, which will not be the case when one of them insists upon its own position without contemplating any modification of it.

231. Although this was arguably because Indonesia wanted Malaysia's support for its newly proposed concept of archipelagic waters. It has also now caused issues in the negotiation of EEZ boundaries with Malaysia.

232. Zou, supra note 84 at 14Google Scholar

233. Hui, YU, “Joint Development of Mineral Resources - An Asian Solution?” (1992) 2 Asian Yearbook of International Law 87 at 112 Google Scholar

234. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 3 at 263Google Scholar

235. WILLIS, Alan L., “Delimitation in State Practice Generally,” in Donat PHARAND and Umberto LEANZA, eds., The Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone: Delimitation and Legal Regime (Dordrecht/Boston/London:, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993), 65–79Google Scholar

236. Antunes, supra note 5 at 181Google Scholar

237. David ONG, “Implications of Recent Southeast Asian Practice for the International Law on Offshore Joint Development,” in Robert BECKMAN et al., eds., Beyond Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea: Legal Frameworks for the Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Resources (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2013)Google Scholar

238. As set out in the seminal North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, supra note 89.

239. Ian TOWNSEND-GAULT and William STORMONT, “Offshore Petroleum Joint Development Arrangements: Functional Instrument? Compromise? Obligation?” in Gerald Blake et al, eds., The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources (London: Graham & Trotman Ltd and Kluwer Publishers Group, 1995) at 53 Google Scholar

240. Charney and Smith, supra note 132 at 2689Google Scholar

241. Thao, NGUYEN Hong, “Vietnam's First Maritime Boundary Agreement” (1997) 5 IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin 74 at 77 Google Scholar

Charney and Smith, supra note 132 at 2685Google Scholar

242. Schofield, supra note 131 at 302Google Scholar

243. See Table 1, Maritime Boundary Arrangements Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 24, 28, and 32.

244. Bernard, supra note 81Google Scholar

245. Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipidan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment, [2002] I.C.J. Rep. 625.

246. Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, [2008] I.C.J. Rep. 12.

247. BECKMAN, Robert and SCHOFIELD, Clive, “Moving Beyond Disputes over Island Sovereignty: ICJ Sets Stage for Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Singapore Strait” (2009) 40 Ocean Development and International Law 1 Google Scholar

248. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 3 at 450Google Scholar

249. Ibid., at 452.

250. See supra note 38.

251. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 3 at 433−434Google Scholar

252. Clive SCHOFIELD, “Dangerous Ground: A Geopolitical Overview of the South China Sea” in Sam BATEMAN and Ralf EMMERS, eds., Security and International Politics in the South China Sea (London: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar

253. SMITH, Robert W., “Maritime Delimitation in the South China Sea: Potentiality and Challenges” (2010) 41 Ocean Development & International Law 214 Google Scholar

254. MERRILLS, J.G., International Dispute Settlement, 5th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) at 23 Google Scholar

255. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 3 at 258Google Scholar

256. Merrills, supra note 254 at 58Google Scholar

Prescott and Schofield, supra note 3 at 258Google Scholar

257. Prescott and Schofield, supra note 3 at 258Google Scholar

258. Merrills, supra note 254 at 285Google Scholar

259. Woon, supra note 226Google Scholar

260. Merrills, supra note 254 at 291Google Scholar

261. Ibid., at 293.

262. BILDER, R. B., “International Dispute Settlement and the Role of adjudication” in L.F. DAMROSCH, ed., The International Court of Justice at Crossroads (New York: Transnational Publishers, 1987) at 165 Google Scholar

263. Bissinger, supra note 220 at 110Google Scholar

264. Ibid., at 131.

265. Ibid.