Maritime Boundary Disputes Research Articles

The Law Behind Dispute Onset: How Legal Uncertainty Drives Maritime Boundary Disputes

The Law Behind Dispute Onset: How Legal Uncertainty Drives Maritime Boundary Disputes

Why Joint Development Agreement Is the Preferred Model for Settling the Kenya–Somalia Maritime Boundary Dispute

ABSTRACTThis policy brief delves into the procedures surrounding maritime zone disputes under UNCLOS and assesses their efficacy in settling prolonged maritime disputes that involve straddling natural resources and livelihoods in the context of Kenya–Somalia. Given the rise in maritime border disputes across Africa, the brief further examines the use of joint development agreements (JDAs) as a temporary measure for resolving such disputes. It analyzes the challenges associated with using JDAs to address maritime boundary delimitations, their impact on peace and security, and their relationship with local contexts, particularly concerning straddling natural resources and livelihoods. Ultimately, the brief aims to offer practical recommendations for resolving prolonged maritime disputes between neighboring states in Africa, with an emphasis on Kenya and Somalia.

Maritime Boundary Disputes in the Celebes Sea

Maritime Boundary Disputes in the Celebes Sea

INTRODUCTION: Maritime Boundary Disputes in Southeast Asia

INTRODUCTION: Maritime Boundary Disputes in Southeast Asia

The Demarcation of Malaysia-Indonesia Maritime Boundaries: A Review

This research paper analyses the convention underpinning delimitation of Malaysia-Indonesia maritime boundaries. The study analyses international legal frameworks and customary international law, and their application to maritime boundary disputes. The research reveals that 1982 UNCLOS provides general principles and guidelines for delimitating maritime boundaries but does not offer a definitive solution to the complex disputes between states. The research concludes that delimiting maritime boundaries between Malaysia and Indonesia requires a comprehensive and context-specific approach considering legal, historical, and equitable considerations. The study recommends that Malaysia and Indonesia engage in a constructive and cooperative dialogue based on mutual respect, good faith, and pacifistic settlement of disputes. The study also highlights the significance of supporting the rule of law and obeying international law principles in fostering regional political stability. The normative juridical method of research provides a valuable contribution to understanding the legal principles governing the delimitation of maritime boundaries. It offers practical recommendations for resolving disputes between Malaysia and Indonesia in a manner that upholds international law and promotes regional cooperation.

Efisiensi Garis Litigasi dan Garis Non Litigasi pada Penyelesaian Sengketa Batas Laut Indonesia Menurut Unclos 1982

The purpose of this study is to investigate and analyze the causes of maritime boundary disputes in Indonesia as well as the efficiency of ITLOS in resolving such disputes. Using a statutory approach and a case approach, the author conducted normative legal research. Boundary disputes or disputes involving countries, islands or the sea can be resolved by international courts acting in accordance with international law. There are still many maritime boundary disputes, such as those concerning the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia, the Natuna Sea area between Indonesia and Vietnam, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the South China Sea, and other maritime boundaries. It is these unilateral claims that cause conflict in interstate relations. This can occur due to unresolved international negotiations, violations by one of the parties (countries), unclear sea boundaries, etc. UNCLOS 1982 is a United Nations Convention with a global reach that applies and only applies to countries that have ratified it. Maritime boundary disputes can be resolved in one of two ways: through litigation or through non-litigation. The last resort for resolving maritime boundary disputes is ITLOS. In Indonesia, resolving maritime boundary disputes through litigation has been more successful than resolving disputes through non-litigation.

Efisiensi Garis Litigasi dan Garis Non Litigasi pada Penyelesaian Sengketa Batas Laut Indonesia Menurut Unclos 1982

The purpose of this study is to investigate and analyze the causes of maritime boundary disputes in Indonesia as well as the efficiency of ITLOS in resolving such disputes. Using a statutory approach and a case approach, the author conducted normative legal research. Boundary disputes or disputes involving countries, islands or the sea can be resolved by international courts acting in accordance with international law. There are still many maritime boundary disputes, such as those concerning the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia, the Natuna Sea area between Indonesia and Vietnam, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the South China Sea, and other maritime boundaries. It is these unilateral claims that cause conflict in interstate relations. This can occur due to unresolved international negotiations, violations by one of the parties (countries), unclear sea boundaries, etc. UNCLOS 1982 is a United Nations Convention with a global reach that applies and only applies to countries that have ratified it. Maritime boundary disputes can be resolved in one of two ways: through litigation or through non-litigation. The last resort for resolving maritime boundary disputes is ITLOS. In Indonesia, resolving maritime boundary disputes through litigation has been more successful than resolving disputes through non-litigation.

중국 지방정부 간 해상경계 설정에 관한 법적 고찰

Since the 1980s, China has witnessed rapid progress in its ocean-based industries, including fisheries and aquaculture, shipping, tourism, and deep-water oil and natural gas. Conversely this progress has continuously caused disputes between local authorities over marine planning and development. This is mainly because there are no boundaries on adjacent sea between local governments, which should be delimited based on law. In anticipation of the large-scaled exploitation of marine resources such as wind energy, oil and natural gas, will be more likely to cause maritime boundary disputes. The Chinese government recognizes the importance of maritime delimitation and introduced “Guidelines for Managing Maritime Boundaries” and a “Policy for Maritime Boundary Delimitation” in April 2002. They clearly stipulate the basic principles, procedures, considerations and dispute settlement system for maritime delimitation. Since June of the same year the Provincial governments began to delimit the maritime boundary. This study introduces background and current status of the delimitation of maritime boundaries between Chinese local administrations. Furthermore, this research evaluates the legal grounds of maritime boundary delimitation in China. At the end, this paper will put forth some implications for the Korean government to establish maritime boundaries for its local governments along with introducing laws on maritime delimitation.

Resolving Maritime Delimitation Disputes by Agreement: The Danish–Polish Boundary in the Area of the Island of Bornholm

The extension of coastal states’ jurisdiction over seas in the twentieth century significantly increased the maritime area of overlapping entitlements. The Baltic Sea is a textbook example of such competing claims. In principle, the two main avenues for a coastal state to resolve its dispute are to either conclude a delimitation agreement or lodge the case with an international court or tribunal. This article analyzes the Delimitation Agreement between Denmark and Poland concerning the Baltic Sea south of the island of Bornholm. The states were divided as to how to apportion the maritime zone of 3,500 km2, where the economic zones of Denmark and Poland had not been delimited for several dozen years. The agreed single maritime boundary split the disputed area into unequal parts. The settlement of the maritime dispute coincided temporally with Poland and Denmark’s plans to build a natural gas pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, which probably prompted the two states to put an end to their maritime boundary dispute. The law of the sea provides that the delimitation of maritime zones between states with opposite or adjacent coasts is effected by agreement on the basis of international law in order to achieve an equitable solution. The purpose of this article is to show that (energy) security issues may prompt a resolution of a maritime boundary dispute, and to analyze the Polish–Danish Agreement in the light of the principles governing the maritime delimitation.

Environmental and sociocultural claims within maritime boundary disputes

Coastal livelihoods and marine environmental protection are key ocean governance concerns. Consequently, the international legal framework addresses these needs in a holistic manner. Maritime boundary delimitation should not be the exception. Increasingly, international courts and tribunals are being asked to incorporate a wider range of issues in the resolution of maritime boundary disputes. Therefore, drawing on the full compendium of international marine boundary dispute cases from 1969 to 2021, this paper examines how litigation over maritime boundary disputes reflects broader ocean governance objectives. It concludes that, first, court cases on maritime boundaries are increasing, and second, environmental and sociocultural motives are gaining prominence in the pleas made by nations. Moreover, our analysis suggests that: a) arguments to the courts progressively emphasize holistic and ecosystem-based management and the recognition of traditional ocean-related living practices; and b) although courts and tribunals are called to weigh other types of factors, they are still more receptive to conventional arguments embodied in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). We argue that the newer arguments should have a greater influence during conflict resolution and maritime delimitation processes, in particular, given the greater need for sustainable and equitable ocean governance.

UNCLOS and Maritime Boundary Disputes in Areas of Hydrocarbon Potential: Oil Under Troubled Waters?

abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is credited for promoting order in the world’s oceans. This article evaluates UNCLOS in the context of maritime boundaries in areas of hydrocarbon potential. It uses a dataset of 109 maritime boundaries and finds that the most frequent maritime boundary resolution methodology was not a negotiated delimitation agreement, but a solution only indirectly referenced by UNCLOS: a Joint Development Area agreement with prescriptive resource sharing. This study also discovered that disputes that involve states that have chosen to opt out of compulsory dispute resolution procedures are more likely to remain unresolved than otherwise.

An analysis of Kenya-Somalia Maritime Territorial Dispute in IR perspective

Kenya-Somalia relations have been strained for some time due to economic and maritime boundary disputes. The area under dispute is a region in the Indian Ocean region stretching for more than 100,000 square kilometers. It is not clear which country could be the rightful owner of the contested area. Furthermore, countries in the global arena have, over the years, gained economic interest in the region as it is rich in oil. These countries include United States, France, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Turkey, and Italy. The International Court of Justice has been the main intermediary of the dispute between Kenya and Somali. However, The ICJ has faced a myriad of challenges in the dispute resolution. At last the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its long-awaited verdict in the case of Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya) on the location of the maritime boundary between Somalia and Kenya on October 12, 2021. The study seeks to understand Kenya-Somalia Maritime Territorial Dispute. The objectives of the study is to analyze the role of the media in the Kenya-Somali maritime dispute and best mode of dispute settlement according to the provisions of Chapter VI of the UN Pacific Settlement of Disputes.

Bangladesh V Myanmar Maritime: Boundary Delimitation Case

This article describes technical difficulties of Bangladesh and Myanmar’s maritime boundary dispute (the “Bay of Bengal case”). This was the first maritime delimitation case that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) resolved. A maritime border for the seabed and subsoil of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the extended continental shelf (ECS) was decided by international adjudication for the first time in 2012. It was also the first time detailed technical quantification of seabed areas in the EEZ and ECS was needed for an international forum. After reviewing the ITLOS’s delimitation principles, this article evaluates St. Martin’s Island’s legal status and delimitation effect. The ITLOS concluded that the EEZ and continental shelf legal regimes should not be distinguished in the present instance, but a different approach is proposed for future cases. This article discuss about how to make an equitable boundary and indicates a model for adjusting provisional equidistance lines to accommodate the complicated geophysical rules for the outer limits of the ECS set by the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC).

PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ON MARITIME DISPUTE: CASE BETWEEN KENYA AND SOMALIA

The research analysed the maritime dispute between Kenya and Somalia under the international law perspective. Both states have been experiencing maritime disputes over maritime boundaries of more than 100,000 sq km of seabed in the waters of the Indian Ocean. They began to clash after Somalia accusing Kenya of illegally granting exploration rights to resources in the waters to multinational companies, Total and Eni. As Kenya declared, the waters of the East African Coast are one of the hottest oil exploration prospects in the world, and the contested area has hydrocarbon reserves. The research method is normative legal research. Accordingly, the nature of the research was descriptive-qualitative with data collection techniques by conducting a literature study. The research shows that maritime boundary dispute has worsened diplomatic relations between Kenya and Somalia. Prior to bringing the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the two states agreed to resolve the dispute through bilateral negotiations. However, the case was still unsettled. Therefore, Somalia decided to bring the case before the Court.

Introductory essay: Polar regions and multi-level governance

ABSTRACT This introductory essay synthesises the contributions to this special issue on polar regions and multi-level governance, showing how they address three important themes in the study of institutional complexes: interplay management; the influence that global institutions and processes exert on regional regimes; and the ways in which states and other actors pursue their interests within complexes of institutions. The institutional complexes in focus here comprise institutions relevant to Arctic Ocean governance, EU–Arctic relationships, Arctic maritime boundary disputes, the Antarctic Treaty System (including CCAMLR), the preservation of cultural heritage and the traditional economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, and scientific research in Svalbard.

THE INTERNATIONAL CASES CONCERNING JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS (The Case of Saadia Arabia- Bahrain, Japan-South Korea, Thailand-Malaysia)

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

Troubled seas? The changing politics of maritime boundary disputes

Maritime space is growing in importance. How states utilise, emphasise and view the maritime domain is changing. At the same time, maritime boundary disputes exist on all continents. Why do states engage in disputes over who owns what at sea? How do states delineate ownership and rights? How are these dynamics evolving? These core questions are examined in this article, which explores and reviews the concept of maritime boundaries and related disputes. The focus is on exclusive economic zones (EEZ), the extended maritime zones beyond territorial waters. Ocean boundaries delineating EEZs are important constructs for everything from oil and gas production to fisheries and environmental protection. Beyond function, trends like an increasing focus on the intangible attributes of disputes at sea, combined with the ongoing institutionalisation of ocean-space since the adoption of the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982, force us to update our assumptions regarding the political dynamics of ocean-space.

Waves of contention: framing the complexity of unresolved EU maritime boundary disputes

ABSTRACT European Union (EU) responses to maritime boundary disputes reveal certain paradoxes of governance. The increasing interest of EU states in controlling larger maritime areas and the public and private exploitation of marine and seabed resources are enhancing the territorialization of the sea. The EU as a political project claims to transcend state-vested interests, promoting peaceful dispute resolution when it comes to maritime boundary disputes. This article highlights common drivers of maritime boundary disputes involving member states and the role played by the EU in solving them (or not). The purpose is to provide an investigative introduction that can aid further analyses by showing that EU membership is not in itself sufficient to address historical antagonisms, geographical realities and national/economic interests when it comes to the maritime space. However, the EU does have a positive role to play as a facilitator of diplomatic negotiation, potentially holding both stick and carrot. The current Blue Growth agenda naturally calls for the settlement of disputes and the peaceful use of the oceans, but it can also play a role in feeding them via the incentivization of actors involved in profit-generating activities at sea.

The Nigeria–Sao Tome and Principe Joint Development—a model for a successful joint development agreement

Abstract This work analyses the concrete application of Articles 74 and 83 of UNCLOS, 1982 which enjoins states to find a resolution to their maritime boundary disputes. It uses the Nigeria–Sao Tome and Principe model of joint development agreement to achieve this by critiquing the important provisions of the agreement. It demonstrates that amicable maritime disputes resolution for resources ownership and control can be achieved by negotiations and agreements. This is authoritative third-party authorities like the ICJ and international arbitral institutions. And pending a more permanent delimitation and resolution, cooperative resources development would emerge and possibly thrive.

Developments in Maritime Delimitation Law over the Last Decade: Emerging Principles in Modern Case Law

AbstractThe delimitation of maritime boundaries is a complex and multifaceted process with legal and technical aspects. The process involves the determination of a maritime boundary in a situation where two or more states are confronted with overlapping titles. In the absence of any precise rules in treaty law and established customary rules based on state practice, it has been left to the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals to develop the applicable law of maritime boundary delimitation. This article provides a detailed examination of the complex and multifaceted processes involved in maritime delimitation law. In doing so, it highlights recent developments in the field, with an emphasis on the emerging principles of “non-cut-off” and “non-distortion.” The article also analyzes the crystalizing rules on delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles and questions the applicability of these rules to the ongoing maritime boundary dispute between Canada and the United States in the Beaufort Sea.