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
Australia-Indonesia Sea-bed Boundary Negotiations: Proposals for a Joint Development Zone in the Timor Gap
