•  
  •  
 

Single Maritime Boundary and Dual Maritime Regimes: Case Study of Indonesia

Abstract

Various judgements of international tribunals have shown a trend toward the use of Single Maritime Boundary (SMB) in solving maritime boundary disputes. The application of SMB by international tribunals are based on the submission of the parties in dispute, typically to simplify the maritime boundary delimitation process. The concept of SMB line which puts the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf boundaries into one line has grown into a deceptive perspective eversince that the provisions under 1982 UNCLOS, in particular Articles 74 and 83, are the same. The application of SMB is likely to disadvantageous toward Archipelagic State. The studies on several cases such as the Gulf of Maine, Libya/Malta, Qatar/Bahrain, Bangladesh/Myanmar, indicate certain perspectives that“judicially” SMB is accepted by State practices. Nevertheless, in the Qatar/Bahrain case, the preference to establish separate or single line relies on the States themselves. Despite the growing trend to implement Single Maritime Boundary, Indonesia has consistently acknowledged the distinct regimes of Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf as stipulated in the UNCLOS 1982. Since the entry into force of the 1982 UNCLOS, Indonesia’s position on delimitation emphasizes on the distinction between the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf. Under Indonesia’s practices, the agreed negotiation may be done by extracting two lines in the same agreement or one line in two different agreements. This article will examine the Single Maritime Boundary under international law as well as related state practices and Indonesia perspective and experiences.

Bahasa Abstract

Berbagai putusan pengadilan internasional menunjukkan kecenderungan penggunaan Satu Garis Batas dalam penyelesaian sengketa batas laut. Penerapan satu garis batas oleh pengadilan internasional didasarkan pada pengajuan pihak-pihak yang bersengketa, biasanya untuk menyederhanakan proses penetapan batas maritim. Konsep garis batas tunggal yang menempatkan batas Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif dan Landas Kontinen menjadi satu garis telah berkembang menjadi pandangan yang menyesatkan karena ketentuan dalam UNCLOS 1982, khususnya Pasal 74 dan 83, adalah sama. Penerapan satu garis batas ini berpeluang merugikan Negara Kepulauan. Kajian terhadap beberapa kasus seperti Teluk Maine, Libya/Malta, Qatar/Bahrain, Bangladesh/Myanmar, menunjukkan perspektif tertentu bahwa garis batas tunggal “secara hukum” diterima oleh praktik negara. Namun demikian, dalam kasus Qatar/Bahrain, preferensi untuk membentuk jalur terpisah atau tunggal bergantung pada negara itu sendiri. Meskipun ada tren yang berkembang untuk menerapkan Batas Maritim Tunggal, Indonesia secara konsisten mengakui perbedaan rezim Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif dan Landas Kontinen sebagaimana diatur dalam UNCLOS 1982. Sejak berlakunya UNCLOS tahun 1982, posisi Indonesia mengenai delimitasi menekankan pada pembedaan antara Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif dan Landas Kontinen. Berdasarkan praktik di Indonesia, perundingan yang disepakati dapat dilakukan dengan mengambil dua garis dalam perjanjian yang sama atau satu garis dalam dua perjanjian berbeda. Artikel ini akan mengkaji Batas Laut Tunggal menurut hukum internasional serta praktik negara terkait serta perspektif dan pengalaman Indonesia.

References

Books

Antunes, Nuno Marques, Towards the Conceptualization of Maritime Delimitation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2003;

Prescott, Victor and Schofield, Clive, The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World, Martinus Nijhoff pubslishers, Leiden, 2005. 2nd ed.;

Journal/Articles

Agusman, Damos Dumoli, Perbatasan Antara Indonesia Dan Negara-Negara Tetangganya: Mengapa Sulit Ditetapkan? (Indonesian Boundaries with Neighboring Countries), Jurnal Diplomasi (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) Vol.2 No.4 December 2010;

Agusman, Damos D. & Nurbintoro, Gulardi (2015): The Single Line Maritime Boundaries of Malaysia and Indonesia in the Malacca Strait?, Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, October 2015, DOI: 10.1080/18366503.2015.1094867

Charney, Jonathan I., Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law, The American Journal of International Law, Volume 88 (1994);

Churchill, R.R., The Greenland – Jan Mayen Case and its Significance for the International Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation, The Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 9 (1), 1994

Colson, D.A and R.W. Smith (eds.), Indonesia – Viet Nam, in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. VI report No. 5-27, Leiden, Nijhoff Publishers, 2011;

Hwa-Jin, Kim, The Delimitation of Exclusive Economic Zone and the Question on Dual Maritime Line Boundary, East Asian Perspective, (Verlag V. Florentz, 1989);

Koh, Tommy, The Exclusive Economic Zone, Malaya Law Review, Vol. 30, 1988;

L. H. Legault and Blair Hankey, From Sea to Seabed: The Single Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Case, The American Journal of International Law, Volume 79 (1985);

Richardson, Elliot L., Jan Mayen in Perspective, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 82, No. 3, (July 1988);

Surya, Sharma P.. The Single Maritime Boundary Regime and the Relationship between the Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone. International journal of estuarine and coastal law 2, 1987;

Legal Documents

Gulf of Maine Area, Delimitation of Maritime Boundary, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984;

Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Maritime Boundary Arbitration, Award, Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2006;

Guyana and Suriname, Maritime Delimitation, International Tribunal on Law of the Sea, 2007;

Qatar and Bahrain, Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions, Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2001;

Denmark and Norway, Greenland and Jan Mayen, Maritime Delimitation in the Area, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1993;

Somalia and Kenya, Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2021;

Mauritius and Maldives, Dispute concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Indian Ocean, Judgment, ITLOS, Merits, 2023;

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982;

Others

Anderson, David, CMG (former judge of ITLOS), Methods of Resolving Maritime Boundary Disputes, A summary of a meeting of the International Law Discussion Group at Chatham House on 14th February, 2006;

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS