•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Various judgements of international tribunals have shown a trend of 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 the SMB line, which puts the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf boundaries into one line, has grown into a deceptive perspective when taking into account that the provisions under the 1982 UNCLOS, particularly Articles 74 and 83, are the same. The application of SMBs is likely to be disadvantageous for Archipelagic States. Studies based on several cases such as the Gulf of Maine, Libya/Malta, Qatar/Bahrain, and Bangladesh/Myanmar indicate that certain perspectives of “judicial” SMBs 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 SMBs, Indonesia has consistently acknowledged the distinct regimes of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf, as stipulated in the 1982 UNCLOS. 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.

References

Journal Articles and Periodicals

Agusman, Damos Dumoli and Gulardi Nurbintoro. “The Single Line Maritime Boundaries of Malaysia and Indonesia in the Malacca Strait?” Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs 7, no. 3 (2015): 223—227. doi: 10.1080/18366503.2015.1094867.

Agusman, Damos Dumoli. “Perbatasan Antara Indonesia Dan Negara-Negara Tetangganya: Mengapa Sulit Ditetapkan? [Indonesian Boundaries with Neighboring Countries].” Jurnal Diplomasi 2, no. 4 (2010).

Charney, Jonathan I. “Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law.” The American Journal of International Law 88, no. 2 (1994): 227-256.

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 9, no. 1 (1994): 1-29.

Koh, Tommy T. B. “The Exclusive Economic Zone.” Malaya Law Review 30, no. 1 (1988): 1-33.

Legault, L. H. and Blair Hankey. “From Sea to Seabed: The Single Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Case.” The American Journal of International Law 79, no. 4 (1985): 961-991.

Richardson, Elliot L. “Jan Mayen in Perspective.” The American Journal of International Law 82, no. 3 (1988): 443-458.

Sharma, Surya 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, no. 4 (1987): 203-226.

Books and Book Chapters

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

Colson, D. A. and R.W. Smith, eds. Indonesia – Viet Nam, in International Maritime Boundaries, vol. V. Leiden: Nijhoff Publishers, 2011.

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

Legal Documents

Agreement Between The Government of The Republic of Indonesia and The Government of The Socialist Republic of Vietnam Concerning The Delimitation of The Continental Shelf Boundary, 2457 UNTS 155 (entered into force 26 June 2003).

Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, Award (2006), PCA Case No. 2004-02.

Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration (Bangladesh v. India), Award (2010), PCA Case No. 2010-16.

Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment (1985), ICJ Reports 1985.

Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire), Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2017.

Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2012.

Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, Judgment (1984), ICJ Reports 1984.

Dispute Concerning Delimitation of The Maritime Boundary Between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives), Judgment (2023), ITLOS Case No. 28.

Guyana v. Suriname, Award (2007), PCA Case No. 2004-04.

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Merits, Judgment (2001), ICJ Reports 2001.

Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, Judgment (1993), ICJ Reports 1993.

Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2009.

Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Judgment (2021), ICJ Reports 2021.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 1833 UNTS 397 (opened for signature 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994).

Other Sources

Anderson CMG, David. “Summary of a meeting of the International Law Discussion Group titled Methods of Resolving Maritime Boundary Disputes.” Chatham House, London, United Kingdom, 14 February 2006.

Hwa-Jin, Kim. The Delimitation of Exclusive Economic Zone and the Question on Dual Maritime Line Boundary. Dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, 1988.

Download

Share

COinS