Upload
phamduong
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Professor Clive Schofield
Joint Development of the Continental Shelf where Delimitation is Pending:Cooperative Opportunity or Complication in Oceans Governance
Maritime Zones under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
The Area
200 M
Sea Level
12 M Contiguous zone
Territorialsea
12 M
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
Water Column, Sea-bed, Subsoil
Rise Deep Ocean
Inte
rnal
wat
ers
Terri
toria
l Sea
Bas
elin
e
(Extended Continental Shelf)
Continental ShelfSea-bed, Subsoil, Sedentary Species
High Sea
Shelf
LowerSlopeAnimation by Arsana & Schofield, 2012
UpperSlope Plateu
orTerrace
Source: TALOS Manual (5th edition, 2014)
Implications of Creeping Coastal State Jurisdiction
• Extended maritime claims200 nautical mile claims = 147km2 million (43M2 million)41% of the area of the oceansPLUS: c.30km2 million of extended continental shelf areas (and counting)
• Proliferation in overlapping claims to maritime jurisdiction, “new” potential maritime boundaries and maritime boundary disputes
• c.54% of potential maritime boundaries agreed• BUT: many agreements partial or not in force
Continental Shelf and EEZ delimitation
LOSC Articles 74 and 83
3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.
The legal rationale for joint development arrangements
Key Components of Joint Development
• A formal agreement• Definition of a special zone• Without prejudice clauses• Definition of the resources to which the
arrangement applies• Agreement on the laws and jurisdiction governing
exploration, operations and revenue sharing• Uncontested sovereignty over the area
designated as a joint development zone• Political will
Joint Zones as an addition to delimitation
• Bahrain-Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf (signed 1958)• Qatar-United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi) in the Persian
Gulf (1969)• France-Spain in the Bay of Biscay (1974)• Colombia - Dominican Republic in the Caribbean (1978)• Australia-Papua New Guinea in the Torres Strait (1978)• Iceland-Norway in the North Atlantic (Jan Mayen Island)
(1981)• Faroes-UK in the North Atlantic (1999)• Boundaries defined so security/enforcement jurisdiction
clear cut
Source: International
Maritime Boundaries
Torres Strait
Source: Geoscience Australia
Faroes-UK
Source: International Maritime Boundaries
Joint Zones in lieu of delimitation
• Kuwait-Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf (1965)• Japan-South Korea in the Sea of Japan (1974)• Sudan-Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea (1974)• Australia-Indonesia in the Timor Sea (Timor Gap) (1989)• Malaysia-Thailand in the Gulf of Thailand (1990)• Malaysia-Vietnam in the Gulf of Thailand (1993)• São Tomé-Nigeria in the Gulf of Guinea (2001)• Australia-Timor Leste in the Timor Sea (2002)
The East China Sea
Advantages of Joint Development
• Unlocks intractable disputes• Sidesteps sovereignty issues• Allows development/management of resources/
environment to proceed without delay• Without prejudice clauses effectively address
concerns over compromising jurisdictional claims (at least in a formal legal sense)
Additional Advantages
• Avoids the need for a costly ‘once and for all’ boundary delimitation exercise
• Often perceived to be an ‘equitable’ solution• Cooperative – no ‘winner’ or ‘loser’• Flexible in area, administration, function and
durationCan apply to living or non-living resourcesCan be general or resource-specificCan be permanent or temporaryCan be applied to security issues
• Consistent with international law• Models exist
Challenges in the Application of Provisional Arrangements of a Practical Nature
• The Limits of zones of cooperation• Does using the limits of overlapping claims
areas legitimise and encourage excessive maritime claims?
• Third party rights – other claimants?• Complexity and Continuity
• Intricate arrangements and ongoing costs• Difficult to negotiate and sustain• Need to endure for the long haul• A challenge to State sovereignty• A source of friction in relations?
Challenges in the Application of Provisional Arrangements of a Practical Nature
• Downstream issues• As much of a prize as the marine resources
themselves?• Dealing with the impacts of “success”
• Gulf of Thailand examples - a concentration of State practice
• Gulf of Guinea• Timor Sea arrangements
Cambodia – Vietnam joint ‘historical waters’ area
Malaysia – Thailand joint development area
Malaysia – Vietnam joint development area
Cambodia – Thailand Memorandum of Understanding
The Gulf of Thailand
Source: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011
Source: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011
Sao Tomé EEZ
São Tomé and Príncipe – Nigeria JDZ
Cameroon Claim Line
120°
15°
10° 10°
125°
130°
130°
135°
135°E
TIMOR
FLORES
SUMBAWA
Lombok
SUMBASawu Roti
Alor
Sulawesi
WetarBabar Tanimbar
Islands
Aru Islands
KaiIslands
SCALE0 100 200 300 400km
ScottReefAEEZ
IEEZ
8° 8°
12°102°
102°
106°
106°
111°
111°
12°
5° 5°
JAVA
Christmas I
IEEZ
IEEZ
AEEZ
AEE
Z
0 160kmSCALE
Mercator ProjectionCentral Meridian 106°E
Latitude of true scale 10°S
Sumatra
I N D I A N O C E A N
Agreed seabed and water column boundarybetween Christmas Island and Java (Article 3)
I N D O N ESI A
A U STRA LI A
AshmoreIslands
Mercator ProjectionCentral Meridian 128°ELatitude of true scale 0°
Agreed exclusive economic zone (water column) boundary in the area between continental Australia and the Indonesian archipelago (Article 2)
Agreed extension of the seabedboundary in the area between continental Australia and the Indonesian archipelago (Article 1)
Indonesian exclusive economic zone boundary
Area of overlap between Australian seabedjurisdiction and Indonesian exclusive economiczone (water column) jurisdiction
Australian exclusive economic zone boundary
Zone of Co-operation (Timor Gap Treaty)
Previously agreed seabed boundaries (1971 and 1972)
Area subject to 1974 MOUregarding the operations of Indonesian traditional fishermenwithin the Australian fishing zone
A U STRA LI A
I N D O N ESI A
120° 125°
ButonSelayar
Map 5 - Consolidated depiction of all Australian-Indonesian maritime boundaries after entry into force of the Treaty
MAP 96/ 523.25
I N D I A N O C E A N
Timor Sea
Arafura Sea
IRIAN JAYA
Overlapping claims in the
Timor Sea
Source: Clive Schofield, ‘Minding the Gap: The
Australia – East Timor Treaty on Certain Maritime
Arrangements in the Timor Sea’, International Journal of
Marine and Coastal Law, Volume 22 (2007), No.2: 189-
234.
Opportunities and Challenges in the Application of Provisional Arrangements of a Practical Nature
• Great potential merit but…• Not to be entered into lightly, simply
because negotiations deadlocked
• Significant implementation challenges to overcome
• What area?• Third party rights• Institutional issues• Certainty and Continuity• Downstream issues• Political dimensions