Good agreements make good neighbours: Settlements on maritime boundary disputes in South East Asia

Abstract

Control over marine areas is instrumental for a country's economy, resources, and security. This vested interest of States in surrounding oceans leads to maritime boundary disputes, which are common in South East Asia. Maritime boundary disputes can be resolved through many methods, and it is often difficult for individual States to determine which option to pursue. Indonesia, as the largest archipelagic State in the world, has an extensive history dealing with maritime boundary disputes. This article examines landmark cases with which Indonesia was involved to examine the effectivity of various dispute settlement methods, both casuistically and from a broader policy perspective. Firstly, a theoretical study is presented of the different forms of dispute resolution available for maritime boundary issues, including their advantages and disadvantages. Then, specific cases are discussed: The South China Sea dispute, the development of the archipelagic principle in UNCLOS, and several experiences of disputes concerning Indonesia's maritime perimeter. Ultimately, the authors recommend exhausting all possibilities for negotiated settlements before considering other avenues such to arbitration, litigation, avoidance, and temporary alternatives. Negotiated settlements offer both short-term advantages (increased utility for both parties, mutual acceptability, flexibility, amicableness) as well as long-term gains (higher implementability, positive precedents for future ventures). Some weaknesses were also determined, namely time-intensiveness and the necessity to grant concessions. In general, States are encouraged to pursue negotiated settlements based on mutual interests, as these tend to endure. Specifically, Indonesia and geographically similar States should continue pursuing diplomatic solutions for unresolved segments, reinforcing its existing rights, and preventing misinformation spread to the public.