Abstract

ABSTRACTThis article assesses the treaty practice of the five Arctic Ocean coastal states and Iceland in dealing with the issue of transboundary hydrocarbon deposits as part of the conclusion of maritime delimitation and other related agreements. That practice suggests a number of different ways in which states deal with the issue of hydrocarbon deposits bisected by a maritime delimitation: (1) silence, (2) a standard unity of deposit clause, (3) more complex variations on the standard clause including framework agreements for the development of transboundary deposits, and (4) a delimitation line with some form of joint development zone. This article assesses the Arctic state practice within this typology seeking to supplement the existing literature which tends to focus on the North Sea and Southeast Asia.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call