The Experts below are selected from a list of 4137 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jonathan Kwik - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
good agreements make good neighbours settlements on Maritime Boundary disputes in south east asia
Marine Policy, 2020Co-Authors: Eddy Pratomo, Jonathan KwikAbstract:Abstract Control over marine areas is instrumental for a country's economy, resources, and security. This vested interest of States in surrounding oceans leads to Maritime Boundary disputes, which are common in South East Asia. Maritime Boundary disputes can be resolved through many methods, and it is often difficult for individual States to determine which option to pursue. Indonesia, as the largest archipelagic State in the world, has an extensive history dealing with Maritime Boundary disputes. This article examines landmark cases with which Indonesia was involved to examine the effectivity of various dispute settlement methods, both casuistically and from a broader policy perspective. Firstly, a theoretical study is presented of the different forms of dispute resolution available for Maritime Boundary issues, including their advantages and disadvantages. Then, specific cases are discussed: The South China Sea dispute, the development of the archipelagic principle in UNCLOS, and several experiences of disputes concerning Indonesia's Maritime perimeter. Ultimately, the authors recommend exhausting all possibilities for negotiated settlements before considering other avenues such to arbitration, litigation, avoidance, and temporary alternatives. Negotiated settlements offer both short-term advantages (increased utility for both parties, mutual acceptability, flexibility, amicableness) as well as long-term gains (higher implementability, positive precedents for future ventures). Some weaknesses were also determined, namely time-intensiveness and the necessity to grant concessions. In general, States are encouraged to pursue negotiated settlements based on mutual interests, as these tend to endure. Specifically, Indonesia and geographically similar States should continue pursuing diplomatic solutions for unresolved segments, reinforcing its existing rights, and preventing misinformation spread to the public.
Basil Germond - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Waves of contention:Framing the complexity of unresolved EU Maritime Boundary disputes
Territory Politics Governance, 2020Co-Authors: Francesca Savoldi, Giacomo Orsini, Basil GermondAbstract: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 territorialisation 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). Our 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 incentivisation of actors involved in profit-generating activities at sea.
-
waves of contention framing the complexity of unresolved eu Maritime Boundary disputes
Territory Politics Governance, 2020Co-Authors: Francesca Savoldi, Giacomo Orsini, Basil GermondAbstract: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 priv...
Andreas Østhagen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Maritime Boundary disputes: What are they and why do they matter?
Marine Policy, 2020Co-Authors: Andreas ØsthagenAbstract:Abstract When states legalised the Maritime domain in the 20th century, the relationship between states and Maritime space changed. Since the turn of the millennium, certain global trends have further amplified the role of the oceans in international affairs. This has led to a renewed focus on Maritime space, as well as states' rights and responsibilities within this domain, delineated through the concept of a ‘Boundary’ at sea. What, in essence, is a Maritime Boundary? Why do states end up disputing them? Perhaps more important, how do states go about settling such disputes, and how can we better understand the development of the legal and political principles that frame such endeavours? These are the questions examined in this article, which sets out to examine the concept of Maritime boundaries and related disputes. Leaning on political science, international law and political geography, it reviews how the idea of a Maritime Boundary came about; what principles govern how they are drawn; how they at times are resolved; and possible future trends that might impact Boundary-making at sea.
-
Why Does Canada Have So Many Unresolved Maritime Boundary Disputes
Canadian Yearbook of international Law Annuaire canadien de droit international, 2017Co-Authors: Michael Byers, Andreas ØsthagenAbstract:Canada has five unresolved Maritime boundaries. This might seem like a high number, given that Canada has only three neighbours: the United States, Denmark (Greenland), and France (St. Pierre and Miquelon). This article explores why Canada has so many unresolved Maritime boundaries. It does so through a comparison with Norway, which has settled all of its Maritime boundaries, most notably in the Barents Sea with Russia. This comparison illuminates some of the factors that motivate or impede Maritime Boundary negotiations. It turns out that the status of each Maritime Boundary can only be explained on the basis of its own unique geographic, historic, political, and legal context. Canada’s unresolved Maritime boundaries are the result of circumstances specific to each of them and not of a particular policy approach in Ottawa.
-
Troubled seas? The changing politics of Maritime Boundary disputes
Ocean & Coastal Management, 1Co-Authors: Andreas ØsthagenAbstract:Abstract 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.
Francesca Savoldi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Waves of contention:Framing the complexity of unresolved EU Maritime Boundary disputes
Territory Politics Governance, 2020Co-Authors: Francesca Savoldi, Giacomo Orsini, Basil GermondAbstract: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 territorialisation 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). Our 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 incentivisation of actors involved in profit-generating activities at sea.
-
waves of contention framing the complexity of unresolved eu Maritime Boundary disputes
Territory Politics Governance, 2020Co-Authors: Francesca Savoldi, Giacomo Orsini, Basil GermondAbstract: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 priv...
Don Anton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the vienna convention and legally binding treaties implications for the Maritime Boundary negotiations between australia and timor leste
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Don AntonAbstract:I have been charged by the organisers of this seminar with discussing treaty law and its implications for the possible resumption of Maritime Boundary negotiations between Australia and Timor-Leste before 2057. Perhaps this is the most contentious mandate of today because it involves arguments about changing the status quo. My paper will unfold in two parts. I will first provide a necessary introduction and context in order to understand the arguments about the revival of the Maritime Boundary negotiations between Australia and Timor-Leste through a failure of the Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea (which I will call CMATS). I will then turn to the Arbitration under the Timor Sea Treaty, commenced by Timor-Leste against Australia in 2013, and which is currently pending before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. The Arbitration apparently disputes Australia’s exclusive right to tax the pipeline to Darwin from the Bayu Undan gas field in the Joint Petroleum Development Area under Article 8(b) of the Treaty. Based on information that is publicly available (because the Arbitration remains a closed, secret proceeding), I will review the arguments, pro and con, under the law of treaties that might be run to allow Timor-Leste to escape CMATS before 2057 and revive Australia’s obligation to negotiate the Boundary dispute in good faith with East Timor. These arguments relate to whether the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of CMATS renders CMATS invalid or otherwise void at international law.