Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Deposits in the Law of the Sea pp 23–47Cite as

Joint Development Agreements in International Law in General

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1038 Accesses

Part of the book series: Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs ((HAMBURG,volume 30))

Abstract

The legal order of the seas and oceans is structured, on the one hand, in maritime areas that are subject to the jurisdiction of coastal States and, on the other hand, those areas that are beyond national jurisdiction and that consequently cannot be claimed or allocated to any State.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Article 2 of UNCLOS.

  2. 2.

    Article 8 of UNCLOS.

  3. 3.

    Article 34 of UNCLOS.

  4. 4.

    Article 46 of UNCLOS.

  5. 5.

    Article 33 of UNCLOS.

  6. 6.

    Article 55 of UNCLOS.

  7. 7.

    Article 76 of UNCLOS.

  8. 8.

    Article 86 of UNCLOS.

  9. 9.

    Article 133 of UNCLOS.

  10. 10.

    Continental Shelf case (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1982, para. 104: “The fact that a given area is territorial sea or internal waters does not mean that the coastal State does not enjoy "sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources"; it enjoys those rights and more, by virtue of its full sovereignty over that area”.

  11. 11.

    Article 76(5) of UNCLOS.

  12. 12.

    Article 77(1) of UNCLOS.

  13. 13.

    Article 57 of UNCLOS.

  14. 14.

    Article 56(1) lit. (a) of UNCLOS.

  15. 15.

    Article 60 of UNCLOS.

  16. 16.

    Article 80 of UNCLOS.

  17. 17.

    Article 56(1) lit. (b) of UNCLOS.

  18. 18.

    Article 56(1) lit. (a) of UNCLOS.

  19. 19.

    Article 77(4) of UNCLOS.

  20. 20.

    Article 133 lit. (a) of UNCLOS.

  21. 21.

    Articles 136, 137 and 140(1) of UNCLOS.

  22. 22.

    Articles 89 and 137(1) of UNCLOS.

  23. 23.

    Yoshifumi Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2012), pp. 7, 186. Also see Francisco Orrego Vicuña, Los Fundos Marinos y Oceanicos. Jurisdicción nacional y Régimen internacional (Editorial Andres Bello: Santiago, 1976), pp. 176–180; Jorge A. Vargas, “The legal nature of the patrimonial sea: a first step towards the definition of the exclusive economic zone”, in: 22 German Yearbook of International Law (1979), pp. 142–177.

  24. 24.

    Article 57 of UNCLOS. See Alexander Proelβ, “Ausschlieβliche Wirtschaftszone”, in: Handbuch des Seerechts, edited by Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum (C.H. Beck: Munich, 2006), pp. 222–230; David Joseph Attard, The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law (Claredon Press: Oxford, 1987), pp. 212–221, 235, 271; International Law Association, supra note 15 in Chap. 2, pp. 1–32.

  25. 25.

    This is the case, for example, of the Declaration of Santiago de Chile, done in 18 August 1952 and signed by Chile, Ecuador and Peru. Accordingly, coastal States had sovereign and exclusive rights over the adjacent maritime waters to a minimum distance of 200 nm, which corresponded to the characteristics of the coasts of these countries and the area where the most relevant living resources were concentrated. See Pilar Armanet, “The economic interest underlying the first declaration on a maritime zone”, in: The Exclusive Economic Zone. A Latin American Perspective, edited by Francisco Orrego Vicuña (Westview Press: Boulder Colorado, 1984), pp. 27–30.

  26. 26.

    Edward Duncan Brown, The International Law of the Sea, vol. 1, Introductory Manual (Dartmouth: Aldershot, Broofield USA, Singapore, Sydney, 1994), pp. 224–225, 217–218, 245. Also see Donald R. Rothwell and Tim Stephens, The International Law of the Sea (Hart Publishing: Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2010), pp. 84–85; Tanaka, supra note 23, p. 124.

  27. 27.

    Churchill/Lowe, supra note 68 in Chap. 2, p. 166. Also see Brown, ibid, pp. 218–220; Tanaka, ibid, p. 128; Rothwell/Stephens, ibid, pp. 83–85.

  28. 28.

    The text of Article 78 of UNCLOS reads: “1. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters or of the air space above those waters. 2. The exercise of the rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf must not infringe or result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation and other rights and freedoms of other States as provided for in this Convention.”

  29. 29.

    Memorandum by the President of the Conference on document A/CONF.62/WP.10 (Document A/CONF.62/WP.10/Add.1), 22 July 1977, p. 68.

  30. 30.

    Article 55 of UNCLOS. See Churchill/Lowe, supra note 68 in Chap. 2, p. 84: “The EEZ combines characteristics of the territorial sea and the high seas, but cannot be assimilated to either. It is a sui generis zone with its own distinctive regime. (…) It is an amalgam, or ‘multifunctional’ zone, in which coastal states enjoy sovereign rights in relation to economic resources, and also for certain other matters including environmental protection.” Also see Brown, supra note 26, p. 219.

  31. 31.

    Article 56(1) lit. (a) of UNCLOS.

  32. 32.

    Articles 56(1) lit. (a), ((b)i), 60(1) lit. (b) and 208(1) of UNCLOS.

  33. 33.

    Articles 56(2), 69 and 70, of UNCLOS.

  34. 34.

    Article 77(1) of UNCLOS.

  35. 35.

    Article 56(3) of UNCLOS.

  36. 36.

    Francisco Orrego Vicuña, The Exclusive Economic Zone. Regime and Legal Nature under International Law (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney, 1989), p. 71.

  37. 37.

    Brown, supra note 26, p. 236. On creeping jurisdiction and its influence on the creation of customary law see John A. Knauss, “Creeping jurisdiction and customary international law”, in: 15-2 Ocean Development and International Law (1985), p. 210; Barbara Kwiatkowska, “Creeping jurisdiction beyond 200 miles in the light of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and state practice”, in: 22-2 Ocean Development and International Law (1991), pp. 159–160; Erik Franckx, “The 200-mile: between creeping jurisdiction and creeping common heritage?”, in: 39 George Washington International Law Review (2007), pp. 476–485.

  38. 38.

    Cecil J. B. Hurst, “Whose is the bed of the Sea?”, in: 4 British Yearbook of International Law (1923–1924), p. 43.

  39. 39.

    Articles 55, 56(2) and 87 of UNCLOS.

  40. 40.

    Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, paras. 52, 55, 57 to 60, 66, 68 to 70.

  41. 41.

    Article 56(1) lit. (a) of UNCLOS.

  42. 42.

    Articles 56(1) lit. ((b)ii), 87(1) lit. (f) and 246(2) of UNCLOS.

  43. 43.

    The text of Article 59 of UNCLOS reads: “In cases where this Convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal State or to other States within the exclusive economic zone, and a conflict arises between the interests of the coastal State and any other State or States, the conflict should be resolved on the basis of equity and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, taking into account the respective importance of the interests involved to the parties as well as to the international community as a whole.”

  44. 44.

    Article 297(1) lit. (a) of UNCLOS, a contrario.

  45. 45.

    Policy of the United States with respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf, Proclamation n. 2667, 28 September 1945, 10 Fed. Reg. 12.303 (1945).

  46. 46.

    North Sea Continental Shelf cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, para. 47. One of these examples is the Treaty between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Venezuela relating to the submarine areas of the Gulf of Paria, done at Caracas on 26 February 1942, published at 205 L.N.T.S. 122 and reproduced in: International Maritime Boundaries, vol. 1, supra note 42 in Chap. 2, pp. 651–654. On the legal concept of the continental shelf see Rainer Lagoni, “Festlandsockel”, in: Handbuch des Seerechts, edited by Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum (C.H. Beck: Munich, 2006), pp. 176–180; Suzette Suarez, The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf. Legal Aspects of their Establishment (Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2008), pp 21–74. Also see Juraj Andrassy, International Law and the Resources of the Sea (Columbia University Press: New York, London, 1970), pp. 49–69; H. Lauterpracht, “Sovereignty over submarine areas”, in: 27 British Yearbook of International Law (1950), pp. 376–433; José Luis de Azcárraga y Bustamante, “Los derechos sobre la plataforma continental”, in: 2 Revista Española de Derecho Internacional (1949), pp. 47–99; Richard Young, “Recent developments with respect to the continental shelf”, in: 42 American Journal of International Law (1948), pp. 849–857.

  47. 47.

    Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, The Law of the Sea and Maritime Boundary Delimitation in South-East Asia (Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York, 1987), pp. 57–63.

  48. 48.

    Gilbert Appolis, L’Emprise Maritime de L’Etat Côtier (Editions A. Pedone: Paris, 1981), p. 135; United Nations, “La doctrine du plateau continental et la pratique”, in: Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. 2, pp. 108–113.

  49. 49.

    David Colson, “The delimitation of the outer continental shelf between neighboring status”, in: 97 American Journal of International Law (2003), pp. 91–107; Nguyen Quoc Dinh, Patrick Dailler and Alain Pellet, Droit International Public, 7th edition (Librairie Générale de Doit et de Jurisprudence/E.J.A.: Paris, 2002), pp. 1185–1187; J.-A. Carrillo-Salcedo, El Derecho Internacional en un Mundo en Cambio (Tecnos: Madrid, 1985), p. 102; Mohamed Bennouna, “Les droits d'exploitation des ressources minérales des océans”, in: Le Nouveau Droit international de la Mer, edited by Bardonnet and Virally (A. Pedone: Paris, 1983), pp. 121–127; Charles Rosseau, Droit International Public. Les Relations Internationales, vol. 4 (Sirey: Paris, 1980), p. 433; René-Jean Dupuy, L’Océan Partagé (A. Pedone: Paris, 1979), pp. 105–116, 104; Laurent Lucchini and Michel Voelckel, Droit de la Mer: La Mer et son Droit, Les espaces maritimes, vol. 1 (A. Pedone: Paris, 1990), pp. 54–56, 230–266, 258.

  50. 50.

    Jean Combacau, Le Droit de la Mer (Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, 1985), pp. 47–57; F.V. Garcia Amador, Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone/Le Plateau Continental et la Zone Économique Exclusive, edited by Donat Pharand and Umberto Leanza (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1993), pp. 13–18; Shabtai Rosenne, “Geography in international maritime boundary-making”, in: Law of the Sea, edited by Hugo Caminos (Ashgate: Dartmouth, Aldershot, Burlington US, Singapore, Sydney, 2001), pp. 234–237; Tulio Treves, “La limite extérieure du plateau continental: évolution récente de la pratique”, in: 35 Annuaire Français de Droit International (1989), pp. 724–732; Daniel Bardonnet, “Frontières terrestres et frontières maritimes”, in: 35 Annuaire Français de Droit International (1989), pp. 23–38; Victor Prescott, “National rights to hydrocarbon resources of the continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles”, in: Boundaries and Energy: Problems and Prospects. International Boundary Studies Series, edited by Gerald Blake, Martin Pratt, Clive Schofield and Janet Allison Brown (Kluwer Law International: London, The Hague, Boston: 1998), pp. 84, 51–82; Nuno Marques Antunes, “O novo regime jus-internacionalista do mar: a consagração ex vi pacti de um mare nostrum”, in: Estudos em Direito Internacional Público (Almedina: Coimbra, 2004), pp. 18–31; David Ong, “The legal status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty following the end of Indonesian rule in East Timor”, in: 31 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (2000), p. 113; Philippe Cahier, “Les sources du droit relatif à la délimitation du plateau continental”, in: Le Droit International au service de la Paix, de la Justice et du Développement, mélanges Michel Virally (Pedone: Paris, 1991), pp. 175–179; Umberto Leanza, “La délimitation du plateau continental et de la zone économique exclusive: une introduction”, in: The Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone/Le Plateau Continental et la Zone Économique Exclusive, edited by Donat Pharand and Umberto Leanza (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1993), pp. 37–54; Jonathan I. Charney, “Progress in international maritime boundary delimitation law”, in: 90-1 American Journal of International Law (1996), pp. 227–229, 230; Prosper Weil, “Des espaces maritimes aux territoires maritimes: vers une conception territorialiste de la délimitation maritime”, in: Le Droit International au service de la Paix, de la Justice et du Développement. Mélanges Michel Virally (Pedone: Paris, 1991), pp. 501–511; Rosseau, supra note 49, pp. 334–337, 436–440; Brown, supra note 26, pp. 19, 161, 165; Tanaka, supra note 23, pp. 21–22, 132–133; Rothwell/Stephens, supra note 26, pp. 100–101; Carrillo-Salcedo, supra note 49, p. 211; Churchill/Lowe, supra note 68 in Chap. 2, pp. 7–12, 142–145; Lucchini/Voelckel, supra note 49, pp. 250–256.

  51. 51.

    North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46, para. 19.

  52. 52.

    Gilbert Gidel, Le Plateau Continental (International Bar Association: 1952), p. 4.

  53. 53.

    North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46, paras. 43, 96; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1978, para. 86; Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), supra note 10, para. 73; Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, para. 77; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2012, para. 140.

  54. 54.

    Article 2 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf. See Dominique Carreau, Droit International, 8th edition (Pedone: Paris, 2004), pp. 160–161; Jean-Pierre Lévy, “Les Nations Unies et la Convention de 1982 sur le Droit de la Mer”, in: Revue Belge de Droit International (1995-1), p. 27; Treves, supra note 50, 732–733; Churchill/Lowe, supra note 68 in Chap. 2, p. 144; Dinh/Dailler/Pellet, supra note 49, p. 1185; Lucchini/Voelckel, supra note 126, pp. 52, 94–98.

  55. 55.

    On the definition of the continental shelf in the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf see Francisco Orrego Vicuña, The Changing International Law of High Seas Fisheries (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999), pp. 200–226; Shigeru Oda, International Control of Sea Resources (Martinus Nijohff Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1989), pp. 147–172; Jean Devaux-Charbonnel, “Le régime juridique de la recherche et de l’exploitation du pétrole dans le plateau continental”, in: Annuaire Français de Droit International (1956-2), pp. 320–333.

  56. 56.

    Article 1 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf. See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1953, vol. 2, Documents of the Fifth session including the report of the Commission to the General Assembly, paras. 65, 66 and 73, pp. 213–215. Also see Resolution (UNGA) n. 2574 (XXIV), 15 December 1969, Question of the reservation exclusively for peaceful purposes of the sea-bed and the ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, underlying the high seas beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction, and the use of their resources in the interests of mankind. This Resolution recognized that the definition of the continental shelf provided by the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf did not precisely define the limits of the maritime area over which the State exercises sovereign rights for the purpose of developing natural resources and that customary international law was inconclusive on this matter.

  57. 57.

    This was the limit usually marked on nautical charts and also where it was generally considered that the continental shelf came to an end. See John C. Colombos, The International Law of the Sea, 6th edition (David McKay Company Inc.: New York, 1967), p. 76.

  58. 58.

    Article 1 lit. (a) of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.

  59. 59.

    North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46, paras. 71, 81. Also see Lewis M. Alexander, “Baseline delimitations and maritime boundaries”, in: Law of the Sea (Ashgate: Dartmouth, Aldershot, Burlington US, Singapore, Sydney: 2001), pp. 22–24; Barbara Kwiatkowska, “Equitable maritime boundary delimitation: a legal perspective”, ibid, pp. 243–247, 256–257; Jonathan I. Charney, “Ocean boundaries between nations: a theory for progress”, in: 78-3 American Journal of International Law (1984), pp. 583, 587–594; M. D. Blecher, “Equitable delimitation of continental shelf”, in: 73 American Journal of International Law (1979), pp. 61–65.

  60. 60.

    Article 76 of UNCLOS. See Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, paras. 157–163, 230; Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985, para. 61; Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), supra note 10, para. 127. Also see Gerard J. Tanja, The Legal Determination of International Maritime Boundaries. The Progressive Development of Continental Shelf, EFZ and EEZ Law (Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers: Deventer, Boston, 1990), pp. 207–253; Alex G. Oude Elferink, The Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: A Case Study of the Russian Federation, edited by Shigeru Oda (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1994), pp. 73–84; Edward Duncan Brown, Sea-bed Energy and Minerals: the International Legal Regime. The Continental Shelf, vol. 1 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1992), pp. 19–23; L.D.M Nelson, “The roles of equity in the delimitation of maritime boundaries”, in: 84-4 American Journal of International Law (October 1990), p. 846; Shigeru Oda, The Law of the Sea in our Time - I. New Developments 1966–1975 (Sijthoff: Leyden, 1977), p. 254.

  61. 61.

    David Ong, “Joint development of common offshore oil and gas deposits: “mere” state practice or customary International Law?”, in: 93-4 American Journal of International Law (1999), p. 777; Philip Allott, “Mare Nostrum: a new international Law of the Sea”, in: 86 American Journal of International Law 4 (1992), pp. 767–768; Rosseau, supra note 49, pp. 358–359; Dinh/Dailler/Pellet, supra note 49, p. 1192; Carrillo-Salcedo, supra note 49, p. 214; Combacau, supra note 50, pp. 58–67; Lucchini/Voelckel, supra note 49, pp. 164–169; Bennouna, supra note 49, p. 125; Bardonnet, supra note 50, pp. 22–23, 42; Prescott, V., supra note 50, pp. 51–52; Lagoni, supra note 63 in Chap. 2, pp. 216–218.

  62. 62.

    Article 77 (2) in fine (3) of UNCLOS. North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 46, para. 19.

  63. 63.

    Articles 56(1), 57 and 76(1) of UNCLOS.

  64. 64.

    Francisco Orrego Vicuña, “La zone économique exclusive dans la législation et la pratique des États”, in: Droit de La Mer, vol. 2, coordination by Jean Combacau and Pierre-Marie Dupuy (Pedone: Paris, 1990), pp. 44–45, ibid, supra note 36, p. 71; Julio César Lupinacci, “The legal status of the exclusive economic zone in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea”, in: The Exclusive Economic Zone. A Latin American Perspective, edited by Francisco Orrego Vicuña (Westview Press: Boulder Colorado, 1984), pp. 105–111; Barbara Kwiatkowska, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1989), pp. 91–92; Hugo Caminos, “The regime of fisheries on the exclusive economic zone”, in: The Exclusive Economic Zone. A Latin American Perspective, edited by Francisco Orrego Vicuña (Westview Press: Boulder Colorado, 1984), pp. 151–155; Attard, supra note 24, pp. 192–210.

  65. 65.

    Article 77(2) and (4) of UNCLOS and Article 2(2) of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf. See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, supra note 56, para. 71, p. 214.

  66. 66.

    Article 77(2)(4) of UNCLOS.

  67. 67.

    Article 81 of UNCLOS.

  68. 68.

    Articles 61, 62 and 63 of UNCLOS.

  69. 69.

    Colombos, supra note 57, p. 159.

  70. 70.

    Articles 3, 4 and 5(1)(6) of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.

  71. 71.

    I.T.L.O.S., Dispute concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal, Judgment of 14 March 2012, Case n. 16, para. 475.

  72. 72.

    Article 78 of UNCLOS.

  73. 73.

    Article 79 of UNCLOS.

  74. 74.

    Part XIII of UNCLOS.

  75. 75.

    The law of treaties deals with the law governing how treaties are made and operated, whereas treaty law addresses the substance of treaties, namely the rights and obligations they create. See Anthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2007), pp. 2, 6. Also see Malcom Shaw, International Law (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2003), pp. 810–860.

  76. 76.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna on 23 May 1969 and entered into force on 27 January 1982, published at 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [Vienna Convention].

  77. 77.

    I.T.L.O.S., Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion (Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber), 1 February 2011, Case n. 17, para. 57: “Among the rules of international law that the Chamber is bound to apply, those concerning the interpretation of treaties play a particularly important role. The applicable rules are set out in Part III, Section 3 entitled “Interpretation of Treaties” and comprising Articles 31 to 33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (hereinafter “the Vienna Convention”). These rules are to be considered as reflecting customary international law. Although the Tribunal has never stated this view explicitly, it has done so implicitly by borrowing the terminology and approach of the Vienna Convention’s articles on interpretation (…). The ICJ and other international courts and tribunals have stated this view on a number of occasions (…)”.

  78. 78.

    East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, para. 35. Also see Pierre-Marie Dupuy, “A general stocktaking of the connections between the multilateral dimension of obligations and codification of the law of responsibility”, in: 13-5 European Journal of International Law (2002), p. 1056; Christine M. Chinkin, “East Timor moves into the World Court”, in: 4-2 European Journal of International Law (1993), pp. 208–218; Maria Clara Maffei, “The case of East Timor before the International Court of Justice - some tentative comments”, in: 4-2 European Journal of International Law (1993), pp. 225, 227, 231.

  79. 79.

    Article 2(1) lit. (a) of the Vienna Convention.

  80. 80.

    Richard K. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2010), p. 20; Aust, supra note 75, p. 17.

  81. 81.

    Articles 1, 2(1) and 5 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, done at Vienna on 21 March 1986, not yet in force. Also see James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2012), pp. 369, 179.

  82. 82.

    Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (jurisdiction), Judgment of July 22nd, 1952: I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 112.

  83. 83.

    Crawford, supra note 81, p. 371; Aust, supra note 75, pp. 25–27, 32–57. In this respect the ICJ concluded in the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case that: “On the question of form, the Court need only observe that it knows of no rule of international law which might preclude a joint communiqué from constituting an international agreement to submit a dispute to arbitration or judicial settlement. (…) [T]he Court must have regard above al1 to its actual terms and to the particular circumstances in which it was drawn up.” (supra note 53, para. 96). Also see Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, paras. 263–264.

  84. 84.

    Articles 12 to 17 and 31(1) of the Vienna Convention. The ICJ noted that: “(…) the first duty of a tribunal which is called upon to interpret and apply the provisions of a treaty, is to endeavour to give effect to them in their natural and ordinary meaning in the context in which they occur. If the relevant words in their natural and ordinary meaning make sense in their context, that is and end of the matter. If, on the other hand, the words in their natural and ordinary meaning are ambiguous or lead to an unreasonable result, then, and then only, must the Court, by resort to other methods of interpretation, seek to ascertain what the parties really did mean when they used these words.” Competence of Assembly regarding admission of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 8. Also see Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1991, para. 48.

  85. 85.

    Anthony Aust, “Alternatives to treaty-making: MOUs as political commitments”, in: The Oxford Guide to Treaties, edited by Duncan B. Hollis (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2012), p. 49.

  86. 86.

    On the interpretation of treaties see Gardiner, supra note 80, pp. 141–350; “The Vienna Convention rules on treaty interpretation”, in: The Oxford Guide to Treaties, edited by Duncan B. Hollis (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2012), pp. 475–506.

  87. 87.

    Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, done at San Francisco on 26 June 1945 and entered into force on 24 October 1945 [online: http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf (accessed on August 2013) [UN Charter].

  88. 88.

    Aust, supra note 85, pp. 60–64.

  89. 89.

    Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1992, paras. 373–380.

  90. 90.

    Articles 2(1) lit. (h) and 34 of the Vienna Convention.

  91. 91.

    Free Zones of the Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (France v. Switzerland), 1932 P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 46, p. 147.

  92. 92.

    Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention. See Crawford, supra note 81, pp. 384–386.

  93. 93.

    On customary international law see International Law Association, Report of the International Committee on Formation of Customary (General) International Law, by Rein Mullerson (London Conference 2000), p. 751; International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, by Martti Koskenniemi, Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006 (Fifty-eighth session: Geneva, 1 May-9 June and 3 July-11 August 2006) [online: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf (accessed on August 2013]. Also see Michael Byers, Custom, power and the power of rules: international relations and customary International Law (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999), pp. 130–165; Maurice Mendelson, “The formation of customary international law”, in: 272 Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International (1998), pp. 245–293, ibid, “The subjective element in customary international law”, in: 66 British Yearbook of International Law (1995), pp. 177–208; Michael Akehurst, “Custom as a source of international law”, in: 47 British Yearbook of International Law 1974–1975 (1977), pp. 31–42; Maarten Bos, “The recognized manifestations of international law. A new theory of “sources” ”, in: 20 German Yearbook of International Law (1977), pp. 25–42; Anthony A. d’Amato, “Trashing customary international law”, in: 81 American Journal of International Law (1971), pp. 102–103; Ibid, “Treaties as a source of general rules of international law”, in: 3 Harvard International Law Club Bulletin (1961–1962), pp. 23–28; Crawford, supra note 81, pp. 33–34.

  94. 94.

    Article 2(6) UN Charter, supra note 87, and Article 75 of the Vienna Convention. See Crawford, ibid, p. 33; Shaw, supra note 75, pp. 835–836.

  95. 95.

    Article 26 of the Vienna Convention.

  96. 96.

    Article 2(1) lit. (b) of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, done at Vienna on 22 August 1978 and entered into force on 6 November 1996, published at 1946 U.N.T.S. 3 [Vienna Convention on Succession of States]. This Convention defines ‘succession of States’ as the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory.

  97. 97.

    Article 62(2) lit. (a) of the Vienna Convention. Also see Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States, supra note 96.

  98. 98.

    Crawford, supra note 81, pp. 438–439.

  99. 99.

    Supra note 96.

  100. 100.

    Article 7(1) of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States.

  101. 101.

    Article 13 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States. Also see Nico Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1997), pp. 21–22, 260–274.

  102. 102.

    Article 2(1) and (3) of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and Articles 56(1) lit. (a) and 77(1) of UNCLOS.

  103. 103.

    Territorial Dispute Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v Chad), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1994, para. 73; Frontier Dispute, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, paras. 20–26, 29, 30, 33; Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 34; The Eritrea – Yemen Arbitration, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the First Stage of the Proceedings (Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute), 3 October 1996, para. 153 [online: http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/EY%20Phase%20I.PDF (accessed on August 2013)]. See Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, “Treaties, fundamental change of circumstances”, in: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [online: http://www.mpepil.com (accessed on August 2013)].

  104. 104.

    Vasco Becker-Weinberg, “A nacionalização do petróleo e o princípio do aproveitamento conjunto entre Estados”, edited by M. Oliveira Martins (AAFDL: Lisbon, 2008), pp. 376–377, 387–396. Also see Andreas Zimmermann, “State Succession in other matters than treaties”, in: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [online: http://www.mpepil.com (accessed on August 2013)]; André von Walter, “Arbitration on oil concession disputes”, ibid.

  105. 105.

    International Law Commission, Shared natural resources: first report on outlines, by Chusei Yamada, Doc. A/CN.4/533 (Fifty-fifth session: Geneva, 5 May-6 June and 7 July-8 August 2003) [online: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_533.pdf (accessed on August 2013)].

  106. 106.

    Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/55/10), extract from Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2000, vol. 2, p. 131, para. 729(3).

  107. 107.

    Ibid, Annex, Section 3, p. 141.

  108. 108.

    International Law Commission, Fifth report on shared natural resources, by Chusei Yamada, Doc. A/CN.4/591 (Sixtieth session: 5 May–6 June and 7 July–August 2008), pp. 2–3 [online: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/249/11/PDF/N0824911.pdf?OpenElement (accessed on August 2013)].

  109. 109.

    Ibid, pp. 17–24.

  110. 110.

    International Law Commission, Report of the International Law Commission (Sixty-second session: 3 May–4 June and 5 July–6 August 2010), Doc. A/65/10 (Chapter VII: Shared natural resources), pp. 342–344, paras. 374–384 [online: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/reports/2010/english/chp12.pdf (accessed on August 2013)].

  111. 111.

    Hazel Fox et al., Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas. A Model Agreement for States for Joint Development with Explanatory Commentary, directed by Maurice Bathurst (BIICL: London, 1989), p. 1.

  112. 112.

    Ibid.

  113. 113.

    Ibid, p. 14.

  114. 114.

    Ibid, pp. 10, 115–153.

  115. 115.

    Ibid, p. 1.

  116. 116.

    Ibid, pp. 10–11.

  117. 117.

    Ibid, pp. 388–416.

  118. 118.

    Ibid, p. 155.

  119. 119.

    Annette Flormann-Pfaff, Lagerstätten im Völkerrecht: Joint Development: Zusammenarbeit bei anerkannten und streitigen Grenzen (Duncker und Humblot: Berlin, 1994), pp. 201–209, 376–377.

  120. 120.

    On the possibility of joint development with the use a corporate entity “possessing all of the necessary functional responsibilities of supervision, administration, political oversight and State-to- State consultation, while, equally, allowing (…) the potential and power to conduct the actual physical development of the resource” see William T. Onorato, “Joint development in the international petroleum sector: the Yemeni variant”, in: 39 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1990), pp. 660–662.

  121. 121.

    “Als wesentliche Elemente muss eine Joint Development-Übereinkunft bestimmte Regelungen enthalten. Erstens muss sie die entsprechende Zone definieren. Zweitens sind die Ressourcen zu bestimmen, auf die sie Anwendung findet. Drittens müssen die Hoheitsbefugnisse und das anwendbare Recht ausgewählt werden. Viertens müssen sich die Parteien über die Umstände und Einzelheiten der Erforschung und Ausbeuteung der Ressourcen einschließlich der Verteilung der Kosten und Gewinne einigen” Lagoni, supra note 46, p. 281.

  122. 122.

    Fox et al., supra note 111, p. 46.

  123. 123.

    Also see Mark J. Valencia, South-East Asian Seas: Oil Under Trouble Waters. Hydrocarbon Potential, Jurisdictional Issues, and International Relations (Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York, 1985), pp. 118–119. In the same sense see G. H. Blake and R. E. Swarbrick, “Hydrocarbon and international boundaries: a global overview”, in: Boundaries and Energy: Problems and Prospects, edited by Gerald Blake, Martin Pratt, Clive Schofield and Janet Allison Brown (Kluwer Law International: London, The Hague, Boston, 1998), p. 14.

  124. 124.

    “[J]oint development as an agreement between two States to develop so as to share jointly in agreed proportions by inter-States cooperation and national measures the offshore oil and gas in a designated zone of seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf to which both or either of the participating States are entitled in international law.” Fox et al., supra note 111, p. 45. Robin R. Churchill defines joint development zone as “an area where two or more States have, under international law, sovereign rights to explore and exploit the natural resources of the area and where the States concerned have agreed to engage in such exploration and exploitation under some form of common or joint arrangement.” Robin R. Churchill, “Joint development zones: international legal issues”, in: Joint Development, vol. 2, supra note 70 in Chap. 2, p. 55.

  125. 125.

    On the French proposal for a joint development regime with Spain and Italy see Umberto Leanza, “The delimitation of the continental shelf of the Mediterranean Sea”, in: 8-3 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (1993), p. 388. Also see the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand Relating to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Boundaries in the Northern Part of the Strait of Malacca, done on 21 December 1971, reproduced in: International Maritime Boundaries, vol. 2, edited by Jonathan. I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1993), pp. 1452–1454. This agreement provided that a hydrocarbon deposit that should straddle a boundary line will only be developed after consultation between the three States. On the efficiency of regional instruments in regulating the common resource use of the oceans see Judo Umarto Kusumowidagdo, Consultations Clauses as Means of Providing for Treaty Obedience. A Study in the Law of Treaties (Almqvist & Wiksell International: Stockholm, 1981), pp. 131–132. Also see Ian Brownlie, “Legal status of natural resources in international law (some aspects)”, in: 162 Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International (1979-I), p. 289.

  126. 126.

    William T. Onorato made a proposal for international codification of procedures to be implemented whenever States intended to develop a common offshore hydrocarbon deposit, as an important step towards achieving cooperation regarding these resources: “[a]s a beginning, there is ample reason for an international technical convention establishing uniform exploitation procedures reflecting accepted standards of good oil practice which should apply where several countries are found tapping the same oil deposit. An international codification of such proved practices and procedures would be a useful first step towards providing a basis for even greater co-operation. An alternative step, however, would be to reach an international accord providing for unitised operations between countries drawing from a common source (…).” William T. Onorato, “Apportionment of an international common petroleum deposit”, in: 17 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1968), pp. 101–102; Also see “Apportionment of an international common petroleum deposits”, in: 26 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1977), p. 336.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Max Planck Research School for Maritime Affairs, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Vasco Becker-Weinberg

Authors
  1. Vasco Becker-Weinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasco Becker-Weinberg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Becker-Weinberg, V. (2014). Joint Development Agreements in International Law in General. In: Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Deposits in the Law of the Sea. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 30. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43570-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation