Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Potential Sources of Conflict and Law of the Sea Issues

  • Chapter
The Off-Shore Petroleum Resources of South-East Asia

Part of the book series: Natural Resources of South-East-Asia ((NRSEA))

  • 108 Accesses

Abstract

The presence of petroleum resources in South-East Asia’s seabed and the increasing value attached to them may give rise to serious international conflicts in the course of the development of these resources. Such conflicts would essentially arise from disagreements over ownership rights. Questions concerning property rights over off-shore petroleum resources could spring from (1) incompatibility in perceptions of the equity of existing or proposed legal definitions of jurisdictional boundaries concerned, and (2) incompatibility of jurisdictional boundaries so delineated with geological and environmental phenomena. Disputes may also arise from conflicting historical ownership claims. As stated in the introductory chapter, this study will attempt to identify such conflict situations only for the purpose of analysing their economic and policy implications. No attempt will be made to delve into the politics of such situations.

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

Access this chapter

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Patrick A. Mulloy, ‘Political storm signals over the sea’, Natural History, 1973. It will be of interest to South-East Asian scholars that the involvement of Grotius in legal maritime issues arose from a Dutch-Portuguese dispute over transit rights in the Straits of Malacca, also an issue in the Third Law of the Sea Conference. Grotius advocated freedom of the seas on behalf of the Dutch East India Company’s interests, while Seiden defended the right of dominion by Britain over foreign incursions for security and economic reasons.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Seyom Brown and Larry L. Fabian, ‘Diplomats at Sea’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 52, No. 2 (January 1974), pp. 302–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cited in John Temple Swing, ‘Who will own the oceans?’, Foreign Affairs, April 1976, p. 528.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Some Scandinavian countries claimed 4 miles, a few Mediterranean countries claimed 6 miles, and Russia in Czarist days claimed 12 miles. See Luard, op. cit., p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  5. U.S.A., Presidential Proclamation No. 2667 on the ‘Policy of the United States with respect to the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf’ (The Truman Proclamation), 28 September 1945. See S.H. Lay et al. (compilers), New Directions in the Law of the Sea (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1973), Vol. I, pp. 103–6.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See ‘Agreements between Chile, Ecuador and Peru’, signed at the First Conference on the Exploitation and Conservation of the Maritime Resources of the South Pacific, Santiago (Chile), 18 August 1952, reproduced in Lay et al., Vol. I, pp. 231–4.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See Luard, op. cit., pp. 30–42. See also Swing, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  8. ‘Brunei: Southeast Asia’s pocket size producer’, Petroleum News S.E.A., July 1973, pp. 38–42. See Proclamation dated 30 June 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Position paper circulated by Philippine delegation among various states and the United Nations in 1955. See Arturo M. Tolentino, ‘The waters around us: why the archipelagic doctrine is vital to the Philippines’, BNFI Papers No. 5 (Manila, Philippines: Bureau of National and Foreign Information, undated), p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Luard, op. cit., p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See R.C. Amacher and R.J. Sweeney, eds., The Law of the Sea: U.S. Interests and Alternatives (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Inc., 1976), p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Luard, op. cit., p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Seyom and Brown, op. cit., p. 311.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Quoted in Amacher and Sweeney, op. cit., p. 92.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Petroleum Economist, June 1976, p. 235.

    Google Scholar 

  16. United Nations, Third Conference on the Law of the Sea, ‘Revised single negotiating text’, Part IV, Document A/CONF.62/WP.9/Rev. 2, 23 November 1976, reproduced in Official Records, Vol. VI, pp. 144–55.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See Article 24, ‘Convention on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone’, Geneva, 1958, reproduced in U.S. Congress, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Legislation on Foreign Relations, Joint Committee Print (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974), pp. 1239–46.

    Google Scholar 

  18. United Nations, Third Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records (New York, Caracas, and Geneva sessions), Vols. I, II, and III (New York, 1975). All subsequent references to this will be ‘Official Records’.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Petroleum News S.E. A., 31 May 1974, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sunday Nation (Singapore), 22 May 1977, p. 4, ‘Viets make claim on off-shore zones’, and U.S. State Department Communication, Singapore, 6 July 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Proclamation, 1 September 1964, cited in U.S. State Department, Geographer, Limits in the Seas Series, No. 36. National Claims to Maritime furisdiction, third revision (Washington, D.C.: December 1975), hereinafter referred to as ‘Limits in the Seas’.

    Google Scholar 

  22. ‘Declaration of 15 November 1968 by the Chairman of the Revolutionary Council of the Union of Burma on the Territorial Sea of the Union of Burma’, in United Nations, Legislative Series, National Legislation and Treaties Relating to the Territorial Sea, The Contiguous Zone, the Continental Shelf, the High Seas, and to Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea (New York, 1970), p. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Asian Wall Street fournal (Hong Kong), 12 April 1977, p. 6, ‘Territorial waters of Burma extended’ and ‘Territorial sea and maritime zones law (Pyithu Hluttaw Law No. 3 of 1977)’, promulgated on 9 April 1977, and reproduced in The Working People’s Daily (Rangoon), 10 April 1977, pp. 1, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  24. ‘Declaration du Gouvernement Royal en date du 27 Septembre 1969 relative a la mer territoriale et au plateau continental du Cambodge’, in U.N. Legislative Series, op. cit., p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Document A/Conf. 62/C.2/L.33, Official Records, Vol. III, pp. 212–13.

    Google Scholar 

  26. The term ‘archipelago’ is defined in the Composite Text as a ‘group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such’. An archipelagic state would draw straight baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs, from which its territorial waters, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and continental, shelf would be measured. These baselines may not exceed certain limits, and waters within these baselines would be considered internal waters. See the Composite Text, Articles 46 to 54. See also Official Records, Vol. III, pp. 114, 226.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cited in Peter Polomka, ASEAN and the Law of the Sea (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1975), p. 6. See also Limits in the Seas, p. 95.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See K. Romimohtarto et al., op. cit.ASEAN and the Law of the Sea (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1975), , p. 76.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Idem.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Petroleum News S.E.A. (February 1977), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See Official Records, Vol. II, pp. 23, 264–5; Vol. III, pp. 190, 202. See also Republic Act 3046 of 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tolentino, ‘The waters around us’, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Arturo Tolentino, ‘Archipelagic theory and the law of the sea’, The Philippine Geographical Journal, Vol. XIX, No. 4 (Oct. —Nov. —Dec, 1975), p. 160.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibid., pp. 165–8. Also Official Records as cited.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See Document A/Conf. 62/C.2/L.49, Official Records, Vol. III, pp. 226–7.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See Revised Text, Part II, Article 14. See Article 46 in the Composite Text.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tolentino, ‘The waters around us’, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Official Records, Vol. II, p. 272.

    Google Scholar 

  39. For example, there is concern over Singapore’s right to fish in what is at present considered ‘high seas’ but which would become Indonesian waters under the archipelagic principle. See Official Records, Vol. II, pp. 211, 268, and Doc. A/Conf. 62/C.2/L.33, Official Records, Vol. III, p. 212.

    Google Scholar 

  40. See Document A/Conf. 62/C.2/L.63, 15 August Ì974, in Official Records, Vol. III, p. 233.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 7, 2 August 1969, cited in Limits in the Seas, p. 122.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Official Records, Vol. II, p. 198.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See Official Records, Vol. II, pp. 198, 292–3.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Revised Text, Part II, Article 119(7). Indonesia and Malaysia were reportedly not completely satisfied with the wording of Article 119(7) and jointly submitted a revised provision that would preserve rights traditionally exercised or existing under agreements covering archipelagic waters of a state, where these waters lie between parts of an immediately adjacent neighbouring state. (Private communication. Official documentation is not available at the time this is written.) See Article 47 (7) in the Composite Text.

    Google Scholar 

  45. ‘Convention on the continental shelf, United Nations Document A/Conf. 13/L.55, reproduced in U.S. Congress, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Legislation on Foreign Relations (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974), pp. 1263–6. See Article 2.4.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ibid., Article 1; italics added.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Composite Text, Article 76; italics added.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ibid., Articles 77 and 81.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ibid., Article 82.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ibid., Articles 55 and 57.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ibid., Articles 62 to 71.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ibid., Article 121.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Petroleum News S.E.A., April 1976, p. 21; J.D. Simmons, ‘Developments in deep water drilling from floaters’, paper presented at Offshore Southeast Asia Conference, SEAPEX, session, 18 February 1976; and Asian Wall Street Journal, 28 January 1977, p. 3, ‘Exxon unit reports drilling at record depths off Thailand’.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Part of the boundary of the continental shelf area up to the 54th parallel was delimited by an agreement between the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany on 1 December 1964. A similar agreement was signed between Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany on 9 June 1965. See United Nations, Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on the Development of Petroleum Resources of Asia and the Far East (New York, 1972), Vol. 1, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  56. The Court opined that the ‘submarine areas concerned may be deemed to be actually part of the country over which the coastal state already has dominion—in the sense that, although covered with water, they are a prolongation or continuation of that territory, an extension of it under the sea’. (International Court of Justice, North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Judgement of 20 February 1969, paragraph 46.) See Lay et al., op. cit., Vol. I, p. 193.

    Google Scholar 

  57. U.S. Department of State, Geographer, Limits in the Seas, No. 46, Theoretical Area Allocation of Seabed to Coastal States, International Boundary Study, Series A, 12 August 1972. Cited in Amacher and Sweeney, op. cit., p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  58. United Nations, General Assembly, Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, Official Record, 27th Session, Supplement No. 21 (New York, 1972), p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Luard, op. cit., p. 257.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Proclamation concerning the Indonesian Shelf, 1 February 1969, submitted as Document CCOP (VI)/4, and published in ECAFE, CCOP, Report of the Sixth Session, 1969, p. 136.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Conversation between the author and an Indonesian Delegate to the Law of the Sea Conference, Dr. Hasyim Djalal, 3 June 1976. See also New Directions in the Law of the Sea, Vol. IV, pp. 91–104, for the Australia-Indonesia agreements, and Limits in the Seas, p. 95, for the agreement with India.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Official Records, Vol. II, p. 169.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ibid., pp. 198, 278.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Published in United Nations, Legislative Series, op. cit., pp. 375–9.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Malaysia has ratified a tripartite agreement with Indonesia and Thailand on the Straits of Malacca shelf (see above). It has discussed shelf boundaries on the Gulf with Thailand but by late 1976 no agreement had been ratified. See Petroleum News S.E.A., August 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Official Records, Vol. II, pp. 155, 224.

    Google Scholar 

  67. New Straits Times (Kuala Lumpur), 12 March 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Straits Times (Singapore), 11 October 1976, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Asian Wall Street Journal (Hong Kong), 12 April 1977, p. 6, and ‘Territorial sea and maritime zones law’ in The Working People’s Daily (Rangoon), 10 April 1977, pp. 1,4.

    Google Scholar 

  70. See Chapter 4 of Law No. 3 of 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  71. ‘Declaration du Gouvernement Royal en date du 27 Septembre 1969 relative a la mer territoriale et au plateau continental du Cambodge’, reproduced in United Nations, Legislative Series, op. cit., p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Official Records, Vol. II, pp. 22, 192–3, 225.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 159.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Proclamation from the President dated 7 September 1967 about the policy of the Republic of Viet-Nam concerning the sub-soil, seabed and resources of the Continental Shelf, submitted as Document I & N R/R.98 and published in ECAFE, CCOP, Report of the Fifth Session, 1968, p. 151.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Official Records, Vol. II, p. 162.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Sunday Nation (Singapore), 22 May 1977, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  77. U.S. State Department communication, Singapore, 6 July 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sunday Nation, 22 May 1977, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Ibid. Italics added.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Proclamation No. 370 of 20 March 1968 by the President of the Philippines.

    Google Scholar 

  81. See Far Eastern Economic Review, 28 May 1976, p. 115; Straits Times (Singapore), 18 June 1976, p. 2, Straits Times (Singapore), 21 June 1976, p. 4; Philippine Daily Express (Manila), 31 July 1976, p. 18; and Straits Times (Singapore), 6 July 1976, p. 8. The Philippines has also used the res nullius and national security arguments.

    Google Scholar 

  82. See Straits Times, 15 March 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Official Records, Vol. I, pp. 134, 135 and Vol. II, pp. 151, 211, 285.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Asian Wall Street Journal (Hong Kong), ‘Sea law ends as members divide on progress’, 20 September 1976, pp. 1, 7. See also Official Records, Vol. VI, pp. 133–5.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Sunday Times (Singapore), ‘Sea law talks end without pact’, 17 July 1977, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Corazón Morales Siddayao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1980 Oxford University Press

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Siddayao, C.M. (1980). Potential Sources of Conflict and Law of the Sea Issues. In: The Off-Shore Petroleum Resources of South-East Asia. Natural Resources of South-East-Asia. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-6855-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-6855-7_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-1958-0488-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-6855-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation