Maritime Boundary Agreements Research Articles

The Lebanon-Israel 2022 Maritime Boundary Agreement

Abstract After over a decade of dispute settlement efforts, Israel and Lebanon reached an agreement to establish their common maritime boundary in October 2022. This agreement is a pioneering achievement in the region. It is the first maritime boundary agreement reached between two States that do not have diplomatic relations. The agreement solidifies the trend towards pursuing maritime delimitation and related arrangements over seabed resources in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. This article analyses the legal nature and content of the Lebanon-Israel 2022 maritime boundary agreement and its implications for the tripoint delimitation of the overlapping maritime areas between Cyprus, Lebanon, and Israel.

Maritime boundaries in the energy transition: carbon dioxide (CO2) storage across maritime jurisdictions

Governments around the world are looking to ensure their transition to full low-carbon economies whilst tackling climate change by implementing offshore carbon capture and storage (CCS) – a method of permanently removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels and burying it deep below the seabed in suitable geological formations. Among the main targets of such geological formations are depleted, or nearly depleted, offshore oil and gas reservoirs within existing oil-producing fields. However, such reservoirs will frequently transcend maritime boundaries and jurisdictions, ie a shared geological formation could be used on both sides of the maritime boundary for CO2 sequestration and storage. This raises the potential for disputes among nations, transboundary environmental degradation, and business disruption. The paper discusses the role of CCS in the low-carbon energy transition, focusing specifically on international legal aspects related to the storage of CO2 in sub-seabed geological formations of the continental shelf. Ongoing CO2 storage projects are examined to showcase critical technical aspects, including reservoir selection, well design, and post-injection monitoring. The analysis highlights the need for international coordination in situations where CO2 storage occurs across an international boundary and the importance of consent from all states with jurisdiction over the relevant CO2 storage formations. The paper concludes that existing maritime boundary agreements, including those with straddling deposit clauses, are unlikely to cover transboundary CO2 storage operations, except if they are considered incidental to ongoing petroleum operations.

Prospek Hubungan Maritim Indonesia – Malaysia Pasca Kesepakatan Batas Laut 2023

This article discusses the Indonesia-Malaysia maritime boundary agreement reached in 2023. This paper uses a literature review method to analyze the historical and political context that guided the maritime boundary negotiations between the two countries, particularly highlighting the role of diplomacy and foreign policy in reaching the agreement. Furthermore, it explores the legal aspects of the maritime boundary agreement and its impact on territorial claims, sovereignty and natural resource exploration rights. In the context of international relations, the article discusses how the boundary agreement may affect regional dynamics in Southeast Asia, focusing on the roles of Indonesia and Malaysia as key actors in maritime security and economic development in the region. Comparisons with similar issues in the Asia Pacific region provide a broader perspective on the global implications of this agreement. In addition, this article explores the potential for bilateral collaboration in the areas of security, fisheries surveillance and marine disaster management. Sustainable utilization of natural resources and economic development through maritime cooperation are an important focus, with an emphasis on establishing equitable and sustainable exclusive economic zones. By analyzing all these aspects, this article aims to provide a deep insight into the prospects of maritime relations between Indonesia and Malaysia post the 2023 maritime boundary agreement, as well as provide policy recommendations to strengthen the two countries' cooperation in the maritime field.

Sustainable Energy Governance and the Notion of State Failure

Intractable sovereignty disputes and outside interventions driven by geo-political calculations challenge the rules-based global order and undermine sustainable development and governance, including of energy resources. States facing chronic conflict and instability, and falling short of fundamental norms of international law as enshrined in the United Nations Charter, are labelled as ‘failed States’ without recognising the deterioration of the global order. This article submits that the one-dimensional notion of a ‘failed State’ is problematic and unhelpful. It advocates a more nuanced, sustainability-based approach of State failure in addressing problems associated with governance of energy resources. It does so with reference to two examples from State practice: Russia’s position in the Arctic region in light of the receding ice cap and estimated hydrocarbon reserves in the Arctic Ocean, and the recent US-brokered maritime boundary agreement between Lebanon and Israel enabling Lebanon to gain access to disputed offshore resources without Russian involvement.

Canada and the Russian Federation: Maritime Boundaries and Jurisdiction in the Arctic Ocean

The Arctic region has been the focus of considerable attention in recent years, often concerned with maritime claims and an alleged race for the region’s resources. Against this narrative, the article focuses on the practices of Canada and the Russian Federation with respect to their maritime jurisdictional claims and the delimitation of maritime boundaries with their Arctic neighbours. The article provides an overview of the Arctic region and the international law of the sea with an emphasis on the baselines and maritime claims of the Arctic coastal states. Discussion then turns to the maritime boundary agreements that have been concluded in the Arctic region before overlapping claims to areas of continental shelf underlying the central part of the Arctic Ocean are appraised. The article concludes that Canada and the Russian Federation have enjoyed considerable success in resolving overlapping maritime claims and their pragmatic and innovative approaches coupled with existing regional cooperation bode well for finding peaceful solutions to Arctic Ocean governance challenges in the future.

Drawing Lines at Sea: Australia’s Five Decades of Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Abstract Boundaries in the ocean are man-made constructs of importance to everything from oil and gas production, to fisheries and environmental protection. How do states delineate such ownership and rights? These are the core questions examined in this article, which studies Australia’s maritime boundary agreements, starting with Indonesia in 1971 and ending with Timor-Leste in 2019. In addition to depicting and documenting the main drivers and impediments to these agreements whenever Australia has had to negotiate with a third country, it examines Australia’s approach to boundary-making at sea more generally. Drawing on international law and political science, this article shows why we need understand the interplay between security politics, legal considerations and domestic interests in order to understand what motivates states to settle their maritime disputes.

An ocean apart? Maritime boundary agreements and disputes in the Arctic Ocean

ABSTRACT The Arctic region is sometimes described as an area of geopolitical competition and boundary disputes. However, in terms of territorial and maritime claims, such portrayals are misleading. Our examination of maritime boundaries in the Arctic, and Arctic state practice concerning baselines, maritime claims and extended continental shelf submissions in the central Arctic Ocean, shows that the Arctic is a maritime space where states have settled disputes before real conflict could emerge. In that sense the Arctic is arguably an ocean apart and the case of the Arctic can be of broader relevance regarding maritime disputes in other regional contexts.

Reflections on the Presence of Third States in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation

The presence of third States occurs when two countries delimit their maritime boundary in a maritime area where there are more than two coastal States. The bilateral nature of maritime delimitation between two States requires the delimitation process not to prejudice the legal rights and interests of third States. On the one hand, at the procedural stage of international adjudication, third States may file an application for permission to intervene in the proceedings before a court or tribunal; at the merits stage, a third-party judicial organ may leave undecided the endpoint of a final boundary line to be delimited, so as not to affect the rights of a third State. On the other hand, in interstate maritime boundary agreements through international negotiation, in order to take care of third States' legal rights and interests, States may adopt several ways of addressing the existence of tripoints. This paper, in four parts, discusses the presence of third States in international maritime boundary delimitation. The first part gives a definition of a third State in the framework of maritime delimitation. The second part reflects on international adjudication relating to the presence of third States. The third part provides some observations on State practices relating to the existence of tripoints. The conclusion points out that there is a widening gap between maritime delimitation in theory and in practice, since recent case law particularly confines the delimitation to a purely bilateral status, without enough focus on the presence of third States, resulting in procedurally prejudicial impacts upon the legal rights and interests of third States.

The Estonian-Russian Territorial Sea Boundary Delimitation in the Gulf of Finland

Abstract In 2014, Estonia and the Russian Federation signed their land and maritime boundary agreements that are currently awaiting ratification. This study reconstructs the maritime boundary delimitation between the two States. In particular, the role of islands and pre-existing agreements for the delimitation of the territorial sea boundary in the south-eastern part of the Gulf of Finland are critically examined. It is established that the agreed maritime boundary line is a median line which was influenced by the use of the special circumstances method in the delimitation process.

Morske granice u Jadranskome moru

The delimitation of maritime boundaries in semi-closed seas such as Adriatic is always a complex issue.The first bilateral maritime boundary agreement in the Adriatic Sea was reached at an early stage in the history of maritime delimitation, but potential offshore boundary system became more complicated following political changes in the 1990's and increase in the number of coastal states. This paper provides an overview of the development of maritime boundary system in the Adriatic, highlights disputes and remaining problems and evaluates potential solutions to disputes, claiming that completion of maritime boundary system should enhance regional stability.

The Succession Problem of North Korea-China Border Treaty and Maritime Boundary Agreement

The Succession Problem of North Korea-China Border Treaty and Maritime Boundary Agreement

GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBOURS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN FINALISING MARITIME BOUNDARY DELIMITATION IN THE MALACCA STRAIT BETWEEN INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA

Maritime boundary issues are by no mean new for Indonesia and Malaysia. Notwithstanding the fact that Indonesia and Malaysia signed a maritime boundary agreement as early as 1969, the two States have yet to finalise various pending maritime boundaries between them. Compelling cases such as Ambalat Block dispute (2005, 2009), Tanjung Berakit incident (2010) another incidence in the Malacca Strait (April 2011) and others maritime boundary issues are apparently consequences of unfinished maritime boundaries between Indonesia and Malaysia. This paper seeks to analyse challenges and opportunities in finalising maritime boundaries in the Malacca Strait between Indonesia and Malaysia. It focuses on description of maritime boundaries between the two States, followed by recent developments in the Malacca Strait. An incident involving Indonesian patrolling officers and Malaysian-flagged fishing vessels which occurred on 7 April 2011 is the key case discussed. It is viewed as a relevant representation of what happen between Indonesia and Malaysia, which also applies to other areas where maritime boundaries are pending or absent. This discussion eventually highlights the importance of maritime boundary delimitation in the Malacca Strait between Indonesia and Malaysia. Options for maritime delimitation between Indonesia and Malaysia in the Malacca Strait are the main outcomes of this paper. This is achieved by taking into consideration principle of the law of the sea, relevant jurisprudence, and existing agreement between Indonesia and Malaysia. To accurately generate options for delimitation, geospatial approach was employed by utilising relevant geospatial data and technical tools and operations.

Defining eez Claims from Islands: A Potential South China Sea Change

In the face of seemingly intractable territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea, the article examines how the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (losc), sets out what maritime claims States can make in the South China Sea and how it establishes a framework that will enable States to either negotiate maritime boundary agreements or negotiate joint development arrangements (jdas) in areas of overlapping maritime claims. It provides an avenue whereby the maritime claims of the claimants can be brought into line with international law, potentially allowing for meaningful discussions on cooperation and maritime joint development based on areas of overlapping maritime claims defined on the basis of the losc.

통킹만 경계획정을 통해본 중국의 해양경계획정 정책 및 우리나라 대응방안에 관한 연구

On 25 December 2000, China and Vietnam signed the Agreement on the Delimitation of the Territorial Seas, EEZs and Continental Shelves in the Tonkin Gulf. Three and a half years after signature, in June 2004, China and Vietnam both ratified a maritime boundary agreement for the Tonkin Gulf (Beibu Gulf) and the agreement entered into force. A potentially complicating factor in the negotiation process was likely to have been the status of the Sino-French Agreement of 1887. In the end, the agreement reached indicated that even if the status of the Sino-French Agreement of 1887 was part of the negotiations, both sides eventually agreed that it would not have an impact on the delimitation of maritime zones in the Gulf of Tonkin. Another crucial issue was the impact of the islands, in particular, the Vietnamese controlled Bach Long Vi Island and Con Co Island. Especially, Bach Long Vi Island was entitled to a half suite of maritime zones (3n.m. EEZ) and would impact the tracing of a line of equidistance in the Gulf of Tonkin. Minor as the point might be, Con Co Island also would have an impact for it would play a fixing terminal point for the boundary. Article 7 of the agreement is about minerals and hydrocarbons of cross-boundary deposit, and if any single geophysical structure of oil and gas or other mineral deposits should straddle the demarcation line, an agreement is to be reached on the development of the structure or deposit and on the most effective manner to equally share the profits resulting from the development.

Maritime Delimitation and Fishery Cooperation in the Tonkin Gulf

In June 2004 China and Vietnam ratified both a maritime boundary agreement for the Tonkin Gulf (Beibu Gulf) and a fisheries cooperation agreement for the Gulf. These agreements end years of negotiation and debate regarding the rights of the respective states to the ocean areas and resources in the Gulf.

The 1998 Estonia?Sweden Maritime Boundary Agreement: Lessons to be Learned in the Area of Continuity and/or Succession of States

The recently concluded agreement between Estonia and Sweden concerning the delimitation of their maritime zones in the Baltic Sea, the latest in the Baltic Sea region, raises interesting questions with respect to the continuity and/or succession of States. This is the first agreement concluded since the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in late 1991 that is totally governed by this intricate area of international law. The present article, starting from the opposite theoretical opinion both countries had on this issue, tries to illustrate how the idea of continuity has been mitigated in order to arrive at a practical solution between the parties.

Two More Maritime Boundary Agreements Concluded in the Eastern Baltic Sea in 1997

Two More Maritime Boundary Agreements Concluded in the Eastern Baltic Sea in 1997

Two More Maritime Boundary Agreements Concluded in the Eastern Baltic Sea in 1997

Two More Maritime Boundary Agreements Concluded in the Eastern Baltic Sea in 1997

Deciphering the Nnorth Korean‐Soviet (Russian) maritime boundary agreements

Abstract North Korea and the Soviet Union delimited their land and sea boundaries in two treaties, signed in 1985 and 1986. A warming bilateral relationship, joint plans to develop an economic zone near the Tumen River land boundary, and the desire to exploit marine resources, especially offshore oil, probably accelerated the negotiations. The two countries’ straight baseline claims affected the bearing of the negotiated boundaries. The territorial sea boundary may have given half‐effect to the natural coastline, and inexplicably, its terminus falls short of extending a full 12 nautical miles from the respective straight baseline claims. The 1986 continental shelf/exclusive economic zone boundary reflects the baselines and appears to delimit the South Korea—Soviet Union continental shelf, as well as the tri‐point with Japan. It ignores the presence of Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Tok‐do), islets disputed between Japan and South Korea. Neither South Korea nor Japan has publicly commented on the treaties.

The 1990 USSR-USA Maritime Boundary Agreement

The 1990 USSR-USA Maritime Boundary Agreement