Remarks by Bernard H. Oxman

Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting ◽

10.1017/amp.2019.29 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 112 ◽

pp. 288-291

Author(s):

Bernard H. Oxman

Keyword(s):

Law Of The Sea ◽

Timor Leste ◽

The Law

The chair of the panel, Professor Alina Miron, asked Professor Oxman to address the following: Undoubtedly the first use of the mechanism of compulsory conciliation under Annex V of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea by Timor-Leste was a tremendous success, though not devoid of obstacles. What are the lessons that can be learned from this first experience? How different from the judicial mechanisms were the Commission's functions and procedures?

Download Full-text

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2018

The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law ◽

10.1163/15718085-23441112 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 34 (4) ◽

pp. 539-570 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Robin Churchill

Keyword(s):

Dispute Settlement ◽

Law Of The Sea ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Maritime Boundary ◽

The Pacific ◽

Timor Leste ◽

The Pacific Ocean ◽

The Caribbean ◽

The Law

AbstractThis is the latest in a series of annual surveys in this Journal reviewing dispute settlement in the law of the sea, both under Part XV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and outside the framework of the Convention. It covers developments during 2018. The most significant developments during the year were the judgment of the International Court of Justice in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, delimiting the maritime boundaries between the two States’ overlapping maritime zones in both the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean; the report of the Conciliation Commission concerning maritime boundary arrangements between Timor-Leste and Australia; and the findings of a dispute settlement body of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization.

Download Full-text

The Timor Sea Conciliation and Treaty: Timor-Leste’s Perspective

Australian Year Book of International Law ◽

10.1163/26660229_03601004 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 36 (1) ◽

pp. 43-57

Author(s):

Elizabeth Exposto

Keyword(s):

Democratic Republic ◽

Historical Context ◽

Negotiation Process ◽

Law Of The Sea ◽

Timor Leste ◽

Timor Sea ◽

The Law

Abstract The delimitation of maritime boundaries between Timor-Leste and Australia was a historic process initiated under the compulsory conciliation mechanism in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The resulting Treaty between the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste and Australia Establishing their Maritime Boundaries in the Timor Sea (‘Timor Sea Treaty’) reflects a remarkable achievement for the young nation of Timor-Leste in securing its sovereign maritime rights. This contribution examines the historical context which led to the Timor Sea Treaty, the challenges faced during the negotiation process, and the significance of the Timor Sea Treaty to the renewed relationship between the two countries.

Download Full-text

The Law of the Sea, International Courts, and Judicialization

AJIL Unbound ◽

10.1017/aju.2021.57 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 115 ◽

pp. 373-377

Author(s):

Donald R. Rothwell

Keyword(s):

Continental Shelf ◽

Dispute Settlement ◽

Third Party ◽

Law Of The Sea ◽

International Courts ◽

Maritime Boundary ◽

Timor Leste ◽

The Law ◽

Secondary Mechanism ◽

Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Dispute settlement is entrenched in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) through the Part XV compulsory mechanisms. It is also reflected in UNCLOS's indication that delimitation of the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf is to be by way of agreement between coastal states. While maritime boundary delimitation may be viewed as dominated by judicialization, that is not reflected in UNCLOS. The maritime boundary delimitation project unleashed by UNCLOS gave primacy to delimitation by agreement, with third party settlement under Part XV the secondary mechanism. The 2018 Australia/Timor-Leste maritime boundary settlement highlights how, even when Part XV third party mechanisms were used, the coastal states were able to reach agreement on a maritime boundary by negotiation, without recourse to judicialization.

Download Full-text

Law and Diplomacy, Sovereignty and Consent

Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy ◽

10.1163/24519391-06010002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 5-39

Author(s):

Jeffrey Sheehy

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Self Determination ◽

Law Of The Sea ◽

Historical Factors ◽

Maritime Boundary ◽

Timor Leste ◽

United Nations Convention ◽

The Law ◽

Expert Commission ◽

Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Abstract This article reflects on the first-ever compulsory conciliation under the law of the sea and its significance to international law and diplomacy. The conditions for ending the dispute between Timor-Leste and Australia were only created through a genuine combination of both law and diplomacy as facilitated by an expert commission. Through successive milestones, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos) conciliation framework and the conciliation commission itself, was able to successfully shift the reluctant State (Australia) from resistance, to engagement, and ultimately, to resolution. The conciliation also showed how Timor-Leste’s sovereign interpretation of maritime rights under international law was a compelling argument in the context of historical factors and its self-determination. Ultimately, a treaty was agreed through the conciliation despite competing views of international law’s relationship to diplomacy and indeed on maritime boundary delimitation methodology itself. A reflection on this triumph of the liberal international order is beneficial for both Timor-Leste and Australia as they seek further cooperation under the new treaty, and for other States facing entrenched disputes as well.

Download Full-text