Abstract
This article is dedicated to analysing the joint development agreements resolving or temporarily suspending maritime boundary disputes cases between Japan-South Korea, Saadia Arabia-Bahrain, and Thailand-Malaysia. Regardless of whether any delimitation line exists or not, international law allows the parties to agree on delimitation by consulting on the most appropriate conditions or jointly operate on the disputed zone, field or maritime border. If the cross-border dispute on hydrocarbon resources exists, the conclusion of a unitization agreement is not ruled out by the international practice as much. This article identifies the features of the joint development agreements, divides them into the three models recognized internationally, analyzes the main characteristics of each model of the joint development agreements through historical important precedents. Furthermore, the research lets daylight into the essential statements that regulate the fiscal regime, share proportion issues, the sovereign right, and the right to use subsoil and the seabed, within the agreements. Key words: Maritime boundary disputes, joint development agreements, unitization agreements, delimitation, joint development zone, international cases, demarcation of the continental shelf, seabed, disputes on petroleum reservoir, oil fields, production share agreements
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
