Geopolitik Energi

April 12, 2007

AMBALAT DAN KONFLIK ENERGY SECURITY

Maritime Boundary Delimitation

The maritime political map of the world, including that of Southeast Asia, is profoundly incomplete, with only about 39 percent of potential maritime boundaries even partially resolved.4 This is largely the consequence of the relatively recent, and significant, advance in national claims to jurisdiction offshore. Coastal states have proved enthusiastic in their adoption of the 200 nautical mile (nm) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) concept as codified in the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC), alongside their claims to continental shelf that may extend beyond the 200nm limit.5 As a result, there has been a proliferation in the number of potential maritime boundaries worldwide. Inevitably, a profusion of overlapping jurisdictional claims and offshore boundary disputes have emerged as states seek to secure the maximum maritime entitlements for themselves. The motivation behind delimitation efforts has, unsurprisingly, generally been resource-induced. Traditionally, access to fishery resources represented the key issue. Now, however, energy security considerations tend to be the primary concern.

The LOSC provide minimal guidance, or alternatively great flexibility, as to how maritime boundaries are to be demarcated. Article 15 of the LOSC, dealing with the delimitation of the territorial sea out to 12nm, favors an equidistant line solution unless the states concerned agree otherwise or there exists an “historic title or other special circumstances” in the area to be delimited.6 Yet for the broad resource-oriented zones of sovereign rights, the EEZ and continental shelf, the relevant LOSC provisions, Articles 74 and 83, simply call for agreement to be reached on the basis of international law in order to achieve “an equitable solution”.7 No preferred method of demarcation is indicated, and thus the LOSC’s ‘rules’ are currently open to conflicting interpretation. Additionally, sovereignty disputes, especially over islands, have complicated matters and made a number of conflicting claims to maritime space extremely hard to resolve. This is a major feature of the maritime delimitation scenario in Southeast Asia.

7 Comments »

  1. Bung,

    Bagus euy blognya…
    Kebetulan saya juga tertarik dengan isu-isu hubungan internasional dan internasional politik.
    Coba dong, ulas teori politik internasional punya Kenneth Waltz

    Comment by sholi — August 31, 2007 @ 10:22 am | Reply

  2. bagus…tpi bahasa inggrisnya itu loh,, pegel bacanya!!

    Comment by indah — April 16, 2008 @ 6:08 am | Reply

  3. fuck bgt malaysia

    Comment by wahyi — March 19, 2009 @ 8:05 am | Reply

  4. Outstanding article!! Will come back soon.

    Comment by DescuemDerb — May 20, 2009 @ 7:03 pm | Reply

  5. Hancurkan malaysia, fuck jöngos britis.

    Comment by Merah putih — June 4, 2009 @ 5:18 am | Reply

  6. Sdh taon 2009, Malay’sin’ masih aj nyolek2 Ambalat,Ooi..INA tegaz dong… Gayang Malaysia…:-(

    Comment by Nieki — June 4, 2009 @ 10:26 am | Reply

  7. malaysialan anjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinggnnngggg

    Comment by cata — June 13, 2009 @ 7:58 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.