Timor Gap Treaty Research Articles

The Timor Gap Treaty

1. On 11 December 1989, the Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade signed a treaty of historic significance regarding the mutual understanding to establish a Zone of Cooperation to explore and exploit the resources in the overlapping area claimed by Indonesia and Australia known as the Timor Gap. To add symbolism to the agreement, the signing ceremony of the Treaty took place on board an aircraft flying over the designated Zone of Cooperation at Timor Sea. 2. The content of the treaty and its annexes provide a glimpse of the complexities of the agreement. This paper discusses the provisions of the Timor Gap Treaty and provides a brief analysis on whether entering into a provisional arrangement pursuant to Article 83 of the UNCLOS by establishing a joint development mechanism in the overlapping area may accelerate maritime boundary negotiations.

AUSTRALIAN FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS INDONESIA RELATED EAST TIMOR 1975-1991

This article will explain Australia's attitudes and views on the East Timor issue which caused conflict with Indonesia. But on the other hand, Australia cannot ignore Indonesia's interests in East Timor. In 1978, Australia recognized East Timor "de facto" as part of Indonesia. Then, the question arises why Australia supports the integration of East Timor with Indonesia. What are the underlying interests. The Timor Gap Treaty was ratified on 11 December 1989, strengthening Indonesia's position with Australia. Indonesia is considered more accommodating when compared to Portugal in the matter of maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea region. Indonesia is the most important neighbor country for Australia. In terms of Australian defense, the Indonesian archipelago is a stronghold in northern Australia. This is based on Australia's interest in regional security free from the intervention of other hostile countries. Therefore, the importance of efforts to create government stability in Indonesia. The purpose of this study is to determine the dynamics of Australian foreign policy as seen from the Australian security and defense framework in looking at the East Timor issue. In addition, this research will discuss the Opposition to the Balibo Declaration and the Indonesian military intervention in East Timor which invites Australia's ambiguous attitude in addressing the integration of East Timor with Indonesia. Even though it was always at odds with Indonesia, Australia continued to prioritize its national interests in dealing with Indonesia.

Krzysztof Skubiszewski and the Right to Self-determination: Past and Future

In 1995, Professor Krzysztof Skubiszewski added a Dissenting Opinion to the East Timor Judgment, wherein the ICJ declined jurisdiction in a proceeding started by Portugal against Australia for its having concluded the East Timor Gap treaty with Indonesia, in blatant violation of the East Timorese’s right to self-determination. Ad-hoc Judge Skubiszewski posited that the Court should have accepted jurisdiction and he presented a series of convincing arguments for this proposition. In 2019 the ICJ rendered an Opinion in the Chagos Islands case. The fact that the ICJ accepted jurisdiction in this case demonstrates that an impressive development has taken place since 1995, one whereby many of Professor Skubiszewki’s requests have been implemented. At the same time however, the Chagos Opinion is not fully satisfying as it neglects, to a considerable extent, the human rights issue. This contribution shows that Skubiszewski’s Dis­senting Opinion would have provided guidance also for these questions and that it remains as topical today as it was in 1995.

Maritime Expansion and Delimitation After the Timor Gap Treaty

The Timor Gap Treaty on oil and gas management cooperation in some parts of the Timor Sea was full of political intrigues between Australia and Republic of Indonesia, since the treaty which comprises three areas of cooperation was detrimental to Indonesia and it indicated the highest influence of Indonesian Republic by Australia. Renunciation of the treaty due to the independence of Timor Leste after a referendum resulted in the issue of maritime delimitation between Timor Leste and Indonesia. Nevertheless in fact in 2002 the new state declared maritime expansion to a distance of 100 nautical miles measured from the former Timor Gap lines. The result of the expansion was that it potentially reached to Indonesian oil and gas fields located in the west and east of the lines. Apparently the unilateral expansion conducted by the country which from 1975 until 1999 was the 27th province of Indonesian Republic motivated both states to accelerate maritime delimitation aimed at achieving equitable solution. Although some points existing in border territory have not been agreed yet, the disagreement did not hamper the two states to conduct any negotiations regarding maritime delimitation, mainly delimitation of exclusive economic zone on the basis of the international law rules aimed at achieving equitable solution. This article is designed to examine the substance of Timor Gap Treaty and other issues relating to it, such as the maritime expansion and implementation of the equitable solution principle in maritime delimitation between the two states after the Timor Gap Treaty.

The New Timor Sea Treaty and Interim Arrangements for Joint Development of Petroleum Resources of the Timor Gap

Under the Timor Sea Treaty of 2002, Australia and the newly independent East Timor have agreed upon joint development of the petroleum resources of the disputed Timor Gap. Until this treaty comes into force, an Exchange of Notes applies the terms of the 1989 Timor Gap Treaty, with Australia and East Timor as the implementing parties. Since gaining independence, East Timor has argued that under current principles of international law, it is entitled to a greater share of the Timor Sea's oil and gas resources than is suggested by the boundaries of the Timor Sea Treaty's Joint Petroleum Development Area (JPDA). Principally, East Timor asserts that the western and eastern lines defining the JPDA are ill-founded at international law, a claim that has immediate implications for the joint venture partners in the Greater Sunrise fields that straddle the JPDA's eastern boundary. This paper examines the legal background to the Timor Gap dispute, the agreements that have regulated resource exploitation of the area since 1989, the validity of the respective seabed rights of Indonesia, Australia and East Timor and finally, the impact of Australia's recent withdrawal of maritime boundary disputes from the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

EVOLUTION OF TIMOR SEA TREATY AND IMPACTS ON CONTRACTORS

Since the de-annexation of East Timor from Indonesia, the status of the production sharing contracts issued under the Timor Gap Treaty between Australia and Indonesia has been uncertain. The Zone of Co-operation has been administered pursuant to interim arrangements agreed between Australia and UNTAET, the United Nations authority responsible for the administration of East Timor. With the exception of the development activities being carried on in connection with the Bayu-Undan Field, work by the contractors under their PSC’s has basically halted. The contractors have in effect been in a state of force majeure.On 20 May 2002, Australia and East Timor signed a Treaty for the further development of the region, now known as the joint petroleum development Area. A number of significant changes have been made. At the time of preparing this abstract the Treaty has not been ratified and the exact form of the production sharing contracts to be offered to the existing contractors is not known. The arrangements under the Timor Sea Treaty are interim only and can be changed upon permanent delimitation of the seabed boundaries. Australia and East Timor have indicated that they intend to proceed to negotiate those boundaries.This paper will analyse the history of the negotiations and their outcome, the international unitisation agreement, the positions of the existing holders of production sharing contracts and how their rights are to be transitioned through to the new regime. The paper will report on the new issues and risks that arise for contractors who have existing titles and those who are seeking to invest in the JPDA and on any changes to commercial terms.

The New Timor Sea Arrangement 2001: Is Joint Development of Common Offshore Oil and Gas Deposits Mandated under International Law?

AbstractA new Timor Sea Arrangement is to be adopted by Australia and East Timor upon East Timor's full independence. It is a potentially significant achievement in the prospects for joint development of the petroleum resources in the Timor Gap. This article analyses the legal implications of this latest development in the Timor Gap saga. The new Arrangement implements a modified version of the joint development principle enshrined by the earlier 1989 Timor Gap Treaty much more favourably to the imminent East Timor state. However, the uncertain legal status of the new Arrangement raises questions as to its continuing viability following East Timor's independence. Analysis of this Arrangemcnt suggests that it is sufficiently robust to stand the test of time. More generally, it can now be argued that joint development is mandated under international law as a viable legal alternative to straightforward continental shelf boundary delimitation in the presence of common hydrocarbon deposits.

LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2000

This paper briefly describes a number of legal developments in 2000 which may be of significance to participants in the petroleum exploration and production industry.There has been a number of varied legal developments in this field during the past year, and this paper is not an exhaustive account of all of them. Instead, an attempt has been made to provide an overview of selected developments during 2000 which are noteworthy. With this mind, this paper deals with the following matters:prospective East Timorese independence and the Timor Gap Treaty (focussing on practical arrangements);changes to the work program bidding system;commencement of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Act No 1 2000 (Cth);review of federal and state petroleum (submerged lands) legislation against competition policy principles;commencement of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth);reform of petroleum legislation in South Australia and Queensland; andgreenhouse reforms.In respect of the matters noted above, we have attempted to outline the implications for participants in the petroleum exploration and production industry.

The Legal Status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty Following the End of Indonesian Rule in East Timor

East Timor will soon achieve full independence and statehood. Its initial concerns as a newly independent state are political and economic stability. The current UN presence in East Timor should help ensure that the former concern is addressed so that the transition from a war torn non self-governing territory to a democratically elected government proceeds as smoothly as possible. The latter concern over East Timor's future economic stability is currently tied-up with continuing negotiations over the division of oil and gas revenues derived from a joint development arrangement, namely the Timor Gap Zone of Co-operation Treaty. This bilateral treaty was initially agreed in 1989 between Indonesia, which controlled East Timor from 1975 to 1999, and Australia. Its terms are currently being enforced on a provisional basis as agreed between the United Nations Transitional Administration of East Timor (UNTAET) and Australia while its future is being negotiated.

The New Timor Gap Treaty: Legal and Political Implications

Journal Article The New Timor Gap Treaty: Legal and Political Implications Get access William T. Onorato, William T. Onorato Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Mark J. Valencia Mark J. Valencia Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, Volume 15, Issue 1, Spring 2000, Pages 59–85, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/15.1.59 Published: 01 March 2000

Effectiveness v. the rule of law following the East Timor Case

On 30 June 1995 the International Court of Justice delivered its Judgment in the East Timor case. The dispute before the Court involved proceedings instituted by Portugal against Australia in 1991 because of the conclusion of the so-called Timor Gap Treaty of 1989 between Australia and Indonesia. The Treaty concerns the joint exploitation of the continental shelf lying between the territory of East Timor and the northern coast of Australia (the so-called Timor Gap). Portugal asserted its position as the administering power of East Timor and claimed that Australia should have concluded and implemented the joint exploitation treaty with it rather than Indonesia.

Self-Determination Undetermined: The Case of East Timor

On 22 February 1991, Portugal filed a case against Australia in the Registry of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) instituting proceedings in a dispute concerning “certain activities of Australia with regard to East Timor”. The impetus behind the case was the conclusion of the Timor Gap Treaty between Australia and Indonesia in December 1989. The application alleged that Australia's conduct had caused “particularly serious legal and moral damage to the people of East Timor and to Portugal, which will become material damage also if the exploitation of hydrocarbon resources begins.” Jurisdiction was founded on the parties' declarations under Article 36(2) of the Statute.

Horta v. Commonwealth: The Validity of the Timor Gap Treaty and its Domestic Implementation

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Timor Gap treaty: The continuing controversy

Timor Gap treaty: The continuing controversy

The Timor Gap Treaty and the Law of the Sea Convention 1

The Timor Gap Treaty and the Law of the Sea Convention 1

Australia's international obligation to maritime boundary determination

This paper briefly reviews Australia's participation in the negotiating processes that led to the signing of the Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 1958 and 1982. It refers to the Australian domestic legislation that has been enacted to establish delineation of maritime jurisdiction. Finally, it reflects on the numerous bilateral treaties that Australia has successfully negotiated as its international obligation on seabed boundary determination with her coastal neighbours. The paper focuses the Torres Strait Treaty and the Zone of Cooperation established by the Timor Gap Treaty. This is an abridged and revised version of a paper presented at the SEAPOL Wbrkshop, Chiang Mai, Thailand, May 1991.

International Cooperation for Petroleum Development: The Timor Gap Treaty

International Cooperation for Petroleum Development: The Timor Gap Treaty

TIMOR GAP ZONE OF COOPERATION

On 11 December 1989 the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Senator Evans, and the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Alatas, signed the Treaty to establish a Zone of Cooperation in the Timor Gap.The Timor Gap Treaty is the most substantial bilateral agreement concluded in the forty year history of Australia's relations with Indonesia. The Treaty negotiations have developed a unique regime to allow joint control of petroleum exploration and development activity in Area A of the Zone, the area of joint development. The Treaty encompasses administrative, maritime and fiscal arrangements, customs, migration and quarantine, search and rescue, environmental protection and pollution control, criminal jurisdiction, employment regulation, marine scientific research, health and safety regulations and procedures for settlement of disputes.Work has now commenced to establish the Joint Authority which will be responsible for the administration of petroleum operations in Area A. Contracts in Area A will be awarded by a work program bidding system.