Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- The Regime of Islands Reframed: Developments in the Definition of Islands under the International Law of the Sea -- Abstract -- Keywords -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Defining Islands -- 2.1 International Legal Categorisation of Insular Features -- 2.2 Historical Developments in the Definition of Islands -- 2.2.1 Early Codification Efforts -- 2.2.2 The Drafting History of Article 121 of the LOSC -- 2.3 The Regime of Islands under the LOSC -- 2.3.1 Key Requirements for Insular Status -- 2.3.1.1 Naturally Formed -- 2.3.1.2 Area of Land -- 2.3.1.3 Surrounded by Water -- 2.3.1.4 Above High Tide -- 2.3.2 Rocks -- 2.4 Progress towards the Clarification of the Regime of Islands -- 2.4.1 State Practice -- 2.4.2 Treatment of Islands in Judicial Decisions -- 2.4.3 Views of Commentators -- 3 The Regime of Islands Reframed: The South China Sea Award and Article 121 -- 3.1 The Tribunal's Initial Considerations on the Status of Insular Features -- 3.2 The Tribunal's Interpretation of and Findings on Article 121 -- 3.2.1 Rock -- 3.2.2 Natural Capacity -- 3.2.3 Cannot -- 3.2.4 Sustain -- 3.2.5 Human Habitation -- 3.2.6 Economic Life of Their Own -- 3.2.7 Or -- 3.2.8 Present and Past Capacity -- 3.2.9 Assessment on a Case-by-Case Basis -- 3.2.10 Groups of Islands Sustaining Human Habitation and Economic Life -- 3.2.11 Borderline Cases -- 3.2.12 Context of Article 121(3) and the Object and Purpose of the LOSC -- 3.3 Application to the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Reef -- 4 Almost Islands?: Low-tide Elevations and Artificial Islands -- 4.1 Low-tide Elevations -- 4.2 Artificial Islands, Installations and Structures -- 4.3 Submerged Banks and Shoals -- 5 Reactions to the South China Sea Award -- 5.1 International Responses -- 5.2 Scholarly Views -- 5.2.1 The term "Rock" -- 5.2.2 Does Size Matter? -- 5.2.3 Natural State -- 5.2.4 Historical Evidence.

Overlapping claims to maritime jurisdiction are a key feature of the Gulf of Thailand. These competing claims have resulted from the Gulf's relatively small dimensions and complex coastal geography, allied to maximalist claims on the part of the coastal states. The Gulf of Thailand also represents a proven source of seabed oil and gas and this factor has contributed to making maritime boundary delimitation agreements difficult to achieve. In order to overcome deadlock in negotiations over maritime boundaries, the Gulf of Thailand states have repeatedly opted to create maritime joint development zones in order to exploit hydrocarbon resources believed to be located in areas of overlapping claims. This remarkable concentration of state practice on maritime joint development is reviewed here and the prospects for further such provisional arrangements of a practical nature are examined. (J Contemp Southeast Asia/GIGA)

Overlapping claims to maritime jurisdiction are a key feature of the Gulf of Thailand. These competing claims have resulted from the Gulf's relatively small dimensions & complex coastal geography, allied to maximalist claims on the part of the coastal states. The Gulf of Thailand also represents a proven source of seabed oil & gas & this factor has contributed to making maritime boundary delimitation agreements difficult to achieve. In order to overcome deadlock in negotiations over maritime boundaries, the Gulf of Thailand states have repeatedly opted to create maritime joint development zones in order to exploit hydrocarbon resources believed to be located in areas of overlapping claims. This remarkable concentration of state practice on maritime joint development is reviewed here & the prospects for further such provisional arrangements of a practical nature are examined. Adapted from the source document.

A steady reduction in the United Nations presence in East Timor coupled with failure to reach an agreement with Australia concerning control over vast offshore oil and gas deposits in the Timor Sea raised fears of East Timor (Timor Leste) sliding towards becoming a failed state only three years after finally achieving independence from Indonesia after a quarter of a century of violent struggle. The draft agreement between Australia and East Timor on sharing the contested seabed resources lying between them, finalized in May 2005, has the potential to transform this scenario. This article explores the key economic and security challenges facing East Timor as a prelude to an evaluation of the question of maritime boundary delimitation in the Timor Sea, including analysis of the positions of the contending parties and assessment as to whether the new agreement represents a just and equitable resolution of the dispute (in Australian parlance, a fair go) for East Timor. (Contemp Southeast Asia/DÜI)