THE INTERNATIONAL CASES CONCERNING JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS (The Case of Saadia Arabia- Bahrain, Japan-South Korea, Thailand-Malaysia)

ANCIENT LAND ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (02) ◽  
pp. 35-38
Author(s):  
Jamila Rashadat Majidli ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Petroleum Reservoir ◽  
Development Zone ◽  
Joint Development ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Border Dispute ◽  
Fiscal Regime ◽  
Zone Field ◽  
The Right

This article is dedicated to analysing the joint development agreements resolving or temporarily suspending maritime boundary disputes cases between Japan-South Korea, Saadia Arabia-Bahrain, and Thailand-Malaysia. Regardless of whether any delimitation line exists or not, international law allows the parties to agree on delimitation by consulting on the most appropriate conditions or jointly operate on the disputed zone, field or maritime border. If the cross-border dispute on hydrocarbon resources exists, the conclusion of a unitization agreement is not ruled out by the international practice as much. This article identifies the features of the joint development agreements, divides them into the three models recognized internationally, analyzes the main characteristics of each model of the joint development agreements through historical important precedents. Furthermore, the research lets daylight into the essential statements that regulate the fiscal regime, share proportion issues, the sovereign right, and the right to use subsoil and the seabed, within the agreements. Key words: Maritime boundary disputes, joint development agreements, unitization agreements, delimitation, joint development zone, international cases, demarcation of the continental shelf, seabed, disputes on petroleum reservoir, oil fields, production share agreements

Jan Mayen in Perspective

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliot L. Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Joint Development ◽  
Joint Management ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Development Approach ◽  
The Right

On October 22, 1981, the Governments of Iceland and Norway approved an agreement for the joint management of the resources of the Jan Mayen continental shelf. Incorporating the recommendations of a three-member conciliation commission, the Agreement obviated the need to draw a line demarcating the right to exploit the nonliving resources in the disputed area. The proliferation of boundary disputes during the intervening 7 years makes this an appropriate time to look at the potential benefits of using this approach in other maritime boundary disputes. After reviewing the stages in the resolution of the Jan Mayen dispute and the terms of the Agreement, this essay will discuss other situations in which the joint development approach has been used, the factors affecting its success and some examples of current delimitation disputes where this approach may be applicable.

South Korea Boundary Disputes in the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-329
Author(s):  
Vasco Becker-Weinberg
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
East China Sea ◽  
Yellow Sea ◽  
The Yellow Sea ◽  
East China ◽  
The East China Sea ◽  
Joint Development ◽  
China Sea ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Development Agreement

Abstract South Korea faces a complex situation of overlapping claims in the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea, in addition to those in the East Sea (or Sea of Japan). The boundary disputes in the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea raise two distinctive challenges. The first concerns the joint development agreement signed with Japan almost four decades ago. This agreement is at a stalemate and its initial term of fifty years is fast approaching. There are also reports that the dormancy of the agreement might be partly attributed to an alleged material breach by Japan. Therefore, South Korea should consider the available alternatives, particularly if Japan does not intend to renew the joint development agreement, but instead proceed with its termination. The second challenge concerns the inter-Korean relations and the legal relevance of the Northern Limit Line as a maritime boundary. Although there is no foreseeable timeline for North and South Korea to address the matter, mainly as there are no on-going negotiations, this will ultimately be a key aspect of a future settlement. This article examines these two challenges and attempts to put forward some tentative conclusions regarding the available options for South Korea in both situations.

The Specter of the Past: Reconstructing Conservative Historical Memory in South Korea

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-362
Author(s):  
Myungji Yang
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Historical Memory ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
New Right ◽  
Historical Narratives ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Far Right ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Through the case of the New Right movement in South Korea in the early 2000s, this article explores how history has become a battleground on which the Right tried to regain its political legitimacy in the postauthoritarian context. Analyzing disputes over historiography in recent decades, this article argues that conservative intellectuals—academics, journalists, and writers—play a pivotal role in constructing conservative historical narratives and building an identity for right-wing movements. By contesting what they viewed as “distorted” leftist views and promoting national pride, New Right intellectuals positioned themselves as the guardians of “liberal democracy” in the Republic of Korea. Existing studies of the Far Right pay little attention to intellectual circles and their engagement in civil society. By examining how right-wing intellectuals appropriated the past and shaped triumphalist national imagery, this study aims to better understand the dynamics of ideational contestation and knowledge production in Far Right activism.

scholarly journals Defining eez Claims from Islands: A Potential South China Sea Change

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Beckman ◽  
Clive H. Schofield
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
South China ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
The South ◽  
Joint Development ◽  
China Sea ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Face ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
United Nations Convention

In the face of seemingly intractable territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea, the article examines how the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (losc), sets out what maritime claims States can make in the South China Sea and how it establishes a framework that will enable States to either negotiate maritime boundary agreements or negotiate joint development arrangements (jdas) in areas of overlapping maritime claims. It provides an avenue whereby the maritime claims of the claimants can be brought into line with international law, potentially allowing for meaningful discussions on cooperation and maritime joint development based on areas of overlapping maritime claims defined on the basis of the losc.

Experiences in Dealing with Maritime Disputes

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seokwoo Lee
Keyword(s):  
Fishery Management ◽  
Northeast Asia ◽  
The Yellow Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Development Zone ◽  
Joint Development ◽  
Fishery Resources ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
Sustainable Fishery ◽  
Japan And China

Maritime disputes in the Northeast Asia region are nothing new. The Exclusive Economic Zone (eez) regime under the u.n. Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos) spurred many coastal states, including these countries, to declare eezs. This has led Korea to conclude bilateral fishery agreements with Japan and China, with the goals of achieving sustainable fishery management in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) and the Yellow Sea, and peacefully cooperating with these countries in sharing fishery resources in the region. While not without shortcomings, the agreements provide important procedures for cooperation in fisheries management and sustaining fishery resources. In addition to competition over fishery resources, Korea and Japan agreed to establish a Joint Development Zone (jdz) in 1974. Although the Korea-Japan jdz, however, has not produced oil so far, it nevertheless serves as a model for maritime dispute resolution.

Diplomacy and the challenges of resolving maritime boundary disputes in West Africa: Weighing the options in the case of Ghana and its immediate neighbours

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 773-790
Author(s):  
Frederick Boamah
Keyword(s):  
West Africa ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Peaceful Resolution ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Global Peace

Over the years, the international community has ensured the peaceful resolution of conflict among states. This is reflected in the Charter of the United Nations, where peaceful resolution of international disputes is promoted to ensure global peace and security. The use of diplomacy and pacific settlement of international dispute has been promoted among conflicting states due to its perceived inherent merits. This research explores the significance of diplomacy in resolving maritime boundary disputes in West Africa, placing emphasis on the disputes between Ghana and its neighbours. It does this by looking at secondary data, as well as the unpublished meeting minutes of the parties, to assess diplomacy and other pacific channels of conflict resolution as opposed to third-party dispute processes. The paper highlights diplomacy as the most appropriate means to resolve maritime boundary disputes in West Africa, particularly those confronting Ghana and its neighbours.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document