The legal status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia timor gap treaty following the end of indonesian rule in East Timor

Netherlands Yearbook of International Law

Volumn 31, Issue , 2000, Pages 67-129

  Ong, David M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049481784     PISSN: 01676768     EISSN: 15740951     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0167676800001033     Document Type: Article

References (186)

1. A. L. Smith, ‘East Timor’s Difficult Transition to Independence’, in Daljit Singh and N.J. Freeman, eds., Regional Outlook: Southeast Asia 2001-2002 (Singapore, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies 2001).
2. M.J. Matheson, ‘United Nations Governance of Post Conflict Societies’, 95 AJIL (2001) pp. 76-85, at pp. 81-83.
3. ILM (1990) 469
4. V. Prescott, ‘Australia-Indonesia (Timor Gap)’, Report No. 6-2(5), in J.I. Chamey and L.M. Alexander, eds., International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. II (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) at pp. 1245-1328.
5. H. Fox, ed., Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas, Vol. II, Part III (London, The British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1990) pp. 235-251.
6. V.L. Forbes and F. M. Auburn, ‘The Timor Gap Zone of Co-operation’, Boundary Briefing (1991) No. 9.
7. T.D. Grant, ‘East Timor, the UN System, and Enforcing Non-Recognition in International Law’, 33 Vanderbilt JIL (2000) pp. 273-310, at pp. 275.
8. J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1979) at pp. 394.
9. G. Triggs, ‘Legal and Commercial Risks of Investment in the Timor Gap’, 1 Melbourne JIL (2001) pp. 98-130, at pp. 99
10. UNTAET, First Round of Timor Gap Talks Ends, Daily Briefing (12 October 2000)
11. K. Marks, ‘East Timor claims oil and gas rights’, The Independent. UK. newspaper (Friday 20 April 2001) at pp. 19.
12. V. Prescott, ‘Australia-Indonesia (Seabed Boundaries)’, Report No. 6-2(1) & ‘Australia-Indonesia (Timor and Arafura Seas)’, Report No. 6-2(2) in Chamey and Alexander, eds., International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. II (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) n. 3, at pp. 1195-1205, 1207-1218
13. ‘Administering Power’ of East Timor by UNGA Resolution 1542 (XV) of 15 December 1960.
14. Antonio Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1995) at pp. 224.
15. UNSC Res. 384 (1975) adopted on 22 December 1975, YUN (UN Yearbook) (1975) at pp. 866
16. UNSC Res. 389 (1976) adopted on 22 April 1976, YUN (1976)
17. UN-GA Res. 3485 (1975) of 12 December 1975, YUN (1975) at pp. 865
18. UNGA Res. 31/53 of 1 December 1976, YUN (1976) at pp. 754
19. UNGA Res. 32/34 of 28 November 1977, YUN (1977) at pp. 890
20. UNGA Res. 33/39 of 13 December 1978, YUN (1978) at pp. 869
21. UNGA Res. 34/40 of 21 November 1979, YUN (1979) at pp. 1056
22. UNGA Res. 35/27 of 11 November 1980, YUN (1980) at pp. 1094
23. UNGA Res. 36/50 of 24 November 1981, YUN (1981) at pp. 1185
24. UNGA Res. 37/30 of 23 November 1982, YUN (1982) at pp. 1349.
25. N. Sybesma-Knol, ‘The Indispensable Parties Rule in the East Timor Case’, in E. Denters and N. Schrijver, eds., Reflections on International Law from the Low Countries: in Honour of Paul de Waart, (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1998) pp. 442-457, p. at 445.
26. P. Calvocoressi, World Politics since 1945, 6th edn. (London, Longman 1991) at pp. 472.
27. C.R. Symmons, ‘The International Recognition Position Regarding the Purported Incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia’, in P. Pinto Leite, ed., The East Timor Problem and the Role of Europe (Lisbon International Platform of Jurists for East Timor (IPJET) 1998) pp. 211-221, at pp. 221.
28. K. Suter, ‘Timor Gap Treaty: The continuing controversy’, 17 Marine Policy (1993) pp. 294-302, at pp. 302.
29. Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) Judgment, ICJ Rep. (1995) 90
30. ILM (1995) 1581.
31. I. Scobbie, ‘The East Timor Case: The Implications of Procedure for Litigation Strategy’, 9 Oil and Gas Law and Taxation Review (1991) pp. 273-281
32. S. Kaye, Australia’s Maritime Boundaries, Wollongong Papers on Maritime Policy No. 4 (Wollongong, Australia: Centre for Maritime Policy 1995) pp. 75-78.
33. Case Concerning East Timor, ICJ Rep. (1995)
34. C. Antonopoulos, ‘Effectiveness v. the Rule of Law Following the East Timor Case’, 27 NYIL (1996) pp. 75-111.
35. G.J. Simpson, ‘Judging the East Timor Dispute: Self-Determination at the International Court of Justice’, 17 Hastings I & CLR (1994) p.323.
36. J. Aglionby, ‘UN pressure gives East Timor vote on independence’, The Guardian, UK newspaper (Saturday, 13 March 1999) at pp. 18.
37. J.-C. Cady, Deputy Transitional Administrator of East Timor, ‘Building the New State of East Timor’, Lecture for the Centre of International and Public Law (CIPL) (Canberra, Australia National University on 18 May 2000).
38. ILM (2000) 240.
39. T. Findlay, Cambodia: The Legacy and Lessons of UNTAC, SIPRI Research Report No. 9 (Stockholm/Oxford, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute/Oxford University Press 1995)
40. Institute of Policy Studies of Singapore and UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), The UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC): Debriefing and Lessons, Report of the 1994 Singapore Conference (London, Kluwer Law International 1995).
41. N. Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1997) at pp. 147.
42. W.T. Onorato and M.J. Valencia, ‘The New Timor Gap Treaty: Legal and Political Implications’, 15 ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal (2000) pp. 59-85.
43. UNTAET, ‘First Round of Timor Gap Talks Ends’, Daily Briefing (12 October 2000)
44. J. McBeth, ‘Pipe Dreams’, Far Eastern Economic Review (31 August 2000) at pp. 18.
45. P. Alford and R. Garran, ‘East Timor Wants New Gap Treaty’, The Australian, Sydney newspaper (15 June 2000) at pp. 2
46. S. Vieria de Mello, ‘East Timor Receives First Royalty Payment from Oil Exploitation in Timor Gap’, in UNTAET, Press Release (24 October 2000).
47. M. Miyoshi, ‘The Basic Concept of Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Resources on the Continental Shelf’, 3 International Journal of Estuarine (now Marine) and Coastal Law (1988) pp. 1-18, at pp. 5 and Appendix II, at pp. 17.
48. I. Townsend-Gault, ‘Joint Development of Offshore Mineral Resources - Progress and Prospects for the Future’, 12 Natural Resources Forum (1988) at pp. 275.
49. International Law Association, International Committee on the EEZ, ‘Joint Development of Non-Living Resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone’ Report of the Sixty-Third Conference, Warsaw (1988).
50. Rapporteur: R. Lagoni (hereinafter, 1988 ILA Warsaw Report) pp. 509-558, at pp. 511-512.
51. M. Miyoshi, ‘Basic Legal Issues of Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas in relation to Maritime Boundary Delimitation’, Maritime Briefing, Vol. 2, No. 5 (Durham, International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU) 1999) at pp. 4.
52. H. Fox, et al, Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas, Vol. I (London, British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1988) at pp. 45.
53. R. Churchill, M. Nordquist and S. Houston Lay, eds., New Directions in the Law of the Sea, Vol. 5 (Dobbs Ferry, NY, Oceana Publications 1973) pp. 207-211, ST/LEG/SER.B/16,409
54. ILM (1965) pp. 1134
55. Middle East Economic Survey, Vol. 15, No. 28 (1972) Supplement
56. Churchill et al., Vol. 4 (1975) pp. 117-133
57. D. Ong, ‘Thailand/Malaysia: The Joint Development Agreement 1990’, 6 International Journal of Estuarine (now Marine) and Coastal Law (1991) pp. 57-72, at pp. 61-63.
58. ILM (1982) pp. 1222-1226
59. T.L. McDorman, ‘Malaysia-Vietnam’, Report No. 5-19, in Chamey and Alexander, Vol.III, (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) n. 3, at pp. 2335-2344, text of MOU at pp. 2341-2344
60. K.G. Nweihed, ‘Colombia-Jamaica’, Report 2-18, in Chamey and Alexander, Vol. III, (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) n. 3, at pp. 2179-2204
61. LOS Bull. 40 & 42, respectively (1996)
62. J. R. V. Prescott, ‘Guinea-Bissau-Senegal’, Report 4-4(4) & (5) in Chamey and Alexander, Vol. III, (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) n. 3, at pp. 2251-2278.
63. ILM (1996) pp. 301
64. ‘Current Developments: UK-Argentina’, 11 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (1996) pp. 113-118
65. R.R. Churchill, ‘Falkland Islands - Maritime Jurisdiction and Co-operative Arrangements with Argentina’, 46 ICLQ (1997) pp. 463-477.
66. David M. Ong, ‘Joint Development of Common Offshore Oil and Gas Deposits: ‘Mere’ State Practice or Customary International Law?’, 93 AJIL (1999) pp. 771-804.
67. W.M. Reisman, ‘Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration Award Phase II-Maritime Delimitation’, International Decisions, 94 AJIL (2000) pp. 721-736, at pp. 735.
68. A. Bergin, ‘The Australian-lndonesian Timor Gap Maritime Boundary Agreement’, 5 International Journal of Estuarine (now Marine) and Coastal Law (1990) pp. 383-393.
69. W.T. Onorato and M.J. Valencia, ‘International Cooperation for Petroleum Development: the Timor Gap Treaty’, Vol. 5, ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal (1990) No. 1, pp. 1-29, at pp. 26.
70. H. Burmester, ‘The Zone of Co-operation between Australia and Indonesia: A Preliminary Outline with Particular Reference to Applicable Law’, in H. Fox, ed., Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas, Vol. II, (London, The British Institute of International & Comparative Law 1990) pp. 128-140, at pp. 129-130.
71. North Sea Continental Shelf cases (1969) ICJ Rep. pp. 3, at paras. 19 and 43
72. M. Zahraa, ‘Natural Prolongation and Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries’, VII FYBIL (1996) pp. 378-403.
73. E.D. Brown, ‘The Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case’, 16 San Diego LR (1979) pp. 461, at pp. 477
74. Continental Shelf case (Libya v. Tunisia) ICJ Rep. (1982) pp. 18
75. Continental Shelf case (Libya v. Malta) ICJ Rep. (1985) pp. 13, at pp. 35
76. D.M. Ong, ‘The 1979 and 1990 Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Agreements: A Model for International Legal Co-operation in Common Offshore Petroleum Deposits?’, 14 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (1999) pp. 207-246, at pp. 233.
77. J.L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace, Sir Humphrey Waldock, ed., 6th edn. (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1963) pp. 327-345.
78. A. Vamvoukos, Termination of Treaties in International Law: The Doctrines of Rebus Sic Stantibus and Desuetude (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1985) at pp. 201.
79. A.D. McNair, The Law of Treaties (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1961) at pp. 206, and 214-224.
80. Sir Ian Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn. (Manchester, Manchester University Press 1984) at pp. 162.
81. J. Linehan, ‘The Law of Treaties’, in S. Blay, R. Piotrowicz and B.M. Tsamenyi, eds., Public International Law: An Australian Perspective (Melbourne, Oxford University Press 1997) at pp. 105.
82. S.E. Nahlik, ‘The Grounds for Invalidity and Termination of Treaties’, 65 AJIL (1971) pp. 736-756, at pp. 738.
83. A. Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2000) at p. 257.
84. M. Sforza, ‘The Timor Gap Dispute: The Validity of the Timor Gap Treaty, Self-Determination, and Decolonization’, Note, 22 SuffoIkTransn. LR (1999) pp. 481-528, at pp. 525-526.
85. Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) ICJ Rep. (1995)
86. G. Simpson, ‘A Stone in Each Shoe: Australian Foreign Policy and East Timor’, in Pinto Leite, ed., The East Timor Problem and the Role of Europe (Lisbon International Platform of Jurists for East Timor (IPJET) 1998) n. 13, at pp. 143-158, at pp. 145.
87. I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 5th edn. (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1998) at pp. 515
88. Barcelona Traction case (Second Phase) ICJ Rep. (1970) at pp. 304
89. Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali), ICJ Chamber Judgment, ICJ Rep. (1986) at para. 20, pp. 565.
90. J. Klbbers and R. Lefeber, ‘Africa: Lost between Self-Determination and Ut Possidetis’, in C. Brölmann, R. Lefeber and M. Zieck, eds., Peoples and Minorities in International Law (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) pp. 37-76, at pp. 76.
91. Frontier Dispute case, ICJ Rep. (1986)
92. D.J. Harris, Cases and Material on International Law, 5th edn. (London, Sweet & Maxwell 1998) at pp. 549.
93. S.R. Chowdhury, ‘Permanent sovereignty over natural resources’, in K. Hossain and S.R. Chowdhury, eds., Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Principles and Practice, (London, Frances Pinter 1984) pp. 1-41.
94. NILR (1986) pp. 328-333.
95. K. Hossain, ‘Introduction’, in Hossain and Chowdhury, eds., Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Principles and Practice, (London, Frances Pinter 1984) n. 139, at p. xiv
96. Jimenez de Arechaga, Recueil des cours (1978) at pp. 297.
97. P. Peters, N.J. Schrijver and P.J.I.M. de Waart, ‘Permanent sovereignty, foreign investment and state practice’, in Hossain and Chowdhury, eds., Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Principles and Practice, (London, Frances Pinter 1984) n. 139, at pp. 88-143.
98. Texaco v. Libya (1979) 53 ILR (1979) 389.
99. East Timor case, ICJ Rep. (1995)
100. D.P. O’Connell, ‘Independence and Succession to Treaties’, 38 BYIL (1962) pp. 84-180, at pp. 84.
101. A.S. Hershey, ‘The Succession of States’, 5 AJIL (1911) pp. 285-297, at pp. 285.
102. S.T. Korman, ‘The 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: An Inadequate Response to the Issue of State Succession’, Note, 16 Suffolk Transn. LR (1992) pp. 174-199, at pp. 178-179
103. K. Marek, Identity and Continuity of State in Public International Law, 2nd edn. (Geneva, Libraire Droz 1968) at pp. 10.
104. ILM (1978) at pp. 1488.
105. R. Müllerson, International Law, Rights and Politics: Developments in Eastern Europe and the CIS (London, Routledge 1994) pp. 137.
106. (Bijl. Hand II 1989/90 – 21494 (R 1385) No. 1)
107. 27 NYIL (1996) at pp. 240.
108. A.R. Cowger Jr., ‘Rights and Obligations of Successor States: An Alternative Theory’, Note, 17 Case Western Reserve JIL (1985) pp. 285-314, at pp. 289.
109. M. Koskenniemi, ‘The present state of research carried out by the English-speaking section of the Centre for Studies and Research’, in Centre for Studies and Research in International Law and International Relations, State Succession: Codification Tested Against the Facts, (The Hague, Hague Academy of International Law 1996) at pp. 133.
110. F. Vallat, Special Rapporteur to the ILC, First Report on State Succession in respect of Treaties, Doc.A/CN.4/278. Also in Yearbook ILC 1974 (New York, United Nations 1975) pp. 1-89, at pp. 7. Doc.A/CN/SER.A/1974/Add. 1 (Part One)
111. H. Grotius, De Jure et Pacis Lib pp. 315-319 (F. Kelsey transl. 1913)
112. J. Mallamud, ‘Optional Succession to Treaties by Newly Independent States’, Note, 63 AJIL (1999) pp. 782-791.
113. O’Connell, Reflections on the State Succession Convention’, 39 ZaöRV (1979) pp. 725-739.
114. C.W. Jenks, ‘State Succession in respect of Law-Making Treaties’, 29 BYIL (1952) pp. 105-144, at pp. 107.
115. H. Beemelmans, ‘State Succession in International Law: Remarks on Recent Theory and State Praxis’, 15 Boston Univ. ILJ (1997) pp. 71-123, at pp. 75.
116. M.C.R. Craven, ‘The Problem of State Succession and the Identity of States under International Law’, 9 EJIL (1998) pp. 142-162, at pp. 147-149.
117. D.P. O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1956) at pp. 49
118. Vattel, Le Droit des gens. bk. II, c.xiii, para. 203, English trans. Classics of International Law Series of the Carnegie Institute, Vol. III (1916).
119. The Effect of Independence on Treaties, Rapporteur: D.P. O’Connell (London, Stevens & Sons 1965) at pp. 361.
120. M. Shaw, Title to Territory in Africa: International Legal Issues (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1986) at pp. 233-234.
121. A. Zimmermann, State Succession in respect of Treaties’, in J. Klabbers, M. Koskenniemi, O. Ribbelink and A. Zimmermann, eds., State Practice regarding State Succession and issues of Recognition (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1999) at pp. 82.
122. Y. Makonnen, International Law and the New States of Africa: A Study of the International Legal Problems of State Succession in the Newly Independent States of Eastern Africa (Medford MA, Tufts University 1973) at pp. 441-453.
123. D.P. O’Connell, ‘State Succession and Problems of Treaty Interpretation’, 58 AJIL (1964) pp. 41-61, at pp. 41.
124. B. Cheng, ‘Legal and Commercial Aspects of Data Gathering by Remote Sensing’, in Bin Cheng, ed., Studies in International Space Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1997) pp. 572-597, at pp. 575, n. 9
125. ILM (1983) at pp. 465.
126. G. Marston, ‘The Stability of Land and Sea Boundary Delimitations in International Law’, in G.H. Blake, ed., World Boundaries, Vol. 5: Maritime Boundaries (London, Routledge 1994) pp. 144-167, at pp. 152.
127. O. Udokang, Succession of New States to International Treaties (Dobbs Ferry, NY, Oceana 1972) at pp. 380, fn. 124
128. Jenks, 29 BYIL (1952) at pp. 107
129. O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1956) at pp. 49
130. A. Lester, ‘State Succession to Treaties in the Commonwealth’, 12 ICLQ (1963) at pp. 492.
131. R. Müllerson, ‘Law and Politics in Succession of States; International Law on Succession of States’, in B. Stem, ed., Dissolution, Continuation and Succession in Eastern Europe (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1998) pp. 5-32, at pp. 19.
132. I. Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs: International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations (The Hague, Martinus NijhofT 1998) pp. 55.
133. I. Brownlie, Boundary Problems and New States, Josephine Onoh Memorial Lecture, 27 February 1996 (Hull, University of Hull Press 1996) at pp. 5.
134. Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali) ICJ Rep. (1986) pp. 554, at pp. 566, para. 24.
135. Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, ICJ Rep. (1962) pp. 6.
136. Yearbook of the ILC (1974)
137. Rein Müllerson, ‘New Developments in the Former USSR and Yugoslavia’, 33 Virginia JIL (1993) pp. 299-322, at pp. 313-314.
138. Case Concerning the Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal) 83 International Law Report (1990) pp. 1-120.
139. T. Scovazzi, ‘Turkey-Soviet Union (Continental Shelf)’, Report No. 8-10(2) in Chamey and Alexander, eds., Vol. II, (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) n. 3, pp. 1693-1700, text of agreement at pp. 1698-1700.
140. T. Scovazzi, ‘Turkey-Soviet Union (Exclusive Economic Zone)’, Report No. 8-10(3) in Chamey and Alexander, eds., (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) n. 3, pp. 1701-1707, text at pp. 1706-1707.
141. T. Scovazzi, ‘Black Sea Update: The Former Republics of the Soviet Union and Turkey’, Report No. 8-10(4), in Chamey and Alexander, eds., Vol. III, (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) n. 3, pp. 2443-2445.
142. T. Scovazzi and G. Francalanci, ‘Italy-Yugoslavia (Continental Shelf)’, Report No. 8-7(1), in Chamey and Alexander, eds., Vol. II, (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) n. 3, pp. 1627-1637, text at pp. 1634-1637.
143. T. Scovazzi, ‘Adriatic Sea Update: Croatia-Italy-Slovenia’, in Chamey and Alexander, eds., Vol. III, (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) n. 3, pp. 2437-2442, at pp. 2437
144. Narodne Novine of 7 March 1994.
145. E. Franckx, ‘Baltic Sea Update’ Report No. 10-14 in Chamey and Alexander, eds., (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1993) n. 3, pp. 2557-2573, at pp. 2559.
146. Multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General (Status as of 31 December 1994) at pp. 9
147. Multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General (Status as of 31 December, 1995) also at pp. 9.
148. Liste des Traites et Accords de la France (Status as of October, 1992) Vol. II, at pp. 681, 741 and 744
149. ‘Agreement between the Republic of Finland and the Republic of Estonia on the Boundary of the Maritime Zones in the Gulf of Finland and the Northern Baltic Sea, 1996’, text in 12 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (1997) at pp. 375.
150. S.B. Kaye, ‘The Use of Multiple Boundaries in Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Law and Practice’, 19 Australian YBIL (1998) pp. 49-72, at pp. 63.
151. J.R.V Prescott, ‘The Gulf of Thailand: Maritime Limits to Conflicts and Co-operation’, Maritime Briefings (Durham, International Boundaries Research Unit 1998) at pp. 32-33.
152. D.M. Johnston, The Theory and History of Ocean Boundary-Making (Kingston and Montreal, McGill-Queen’S University Press 1988) at pp. 227-229
153. O.R. Young, Resource Regimes: Natural Resources and Social Institutions (Berkeley CA, University of California Press 1982).
154. S.P. Sharma, International Boundary Disputes and International Law: A Policy-Oriented Study (Bombay, N.M. Tripathi 1976) at pp. 239.
155. Lung-Fong Chen, State Succession Relating to Unequal Treaties (Connecticut, Archon 1974) esp. from pp. 175.
156. N. Kontou, The Termination and Revision of Treaties in the Light of New Customary International Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1994) at pp. 96.
157. O.J. Lissitzyn, ‘Stability and Change: Unilateral Denunciation or Suspension of Treaties by Reason of Changed Circumstances’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 61st Meeting, April 25-29 1967, pp. 186-193, at pp. 187.
158. M. Fitzmaurice, ‘The Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case: The Law of Treaties’, 11 Leiden JIL (1998) pp. 321-344, at pp. 332.
159. A.E. David, The Strategy of Treaty Termination: Lawful Breaches and Retaliations (New Haven, Yale University Press 1975) at pp. 13-14.
160. Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/ Slovakia) Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Rep. (1997) pp. 7, at pp. 65, para. 104.
161. J. Klabbers, ‘Cat on a Hot Tin Roof: The World Court, State Succession and the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case’, 11 Leiden JIL (1998) pp. 345-355, at pp. 349.
162. O.J. Lissitzyn, ‘Treaties and Changed Circumstances (Rebus Sic Stantibus)’, 61 AJIL (1967) pp. 895-922, at pp. 915 and pp. 917
163. Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur to the ILC on the Law of Treaties, in the Second Report on the Law of Treaties, in the 1963 ILC Yearbook (II).
164. D.F. Vagts, ‘State Succession: The Codifiers’ View’, 33 Virginia JIL (1993) pp. 275-297, at pp. 289
165. Guinea-Guinea-Bissau Maritime Delimitation case 77 ILR (1989) pp. 635, at pp. 667
166. Frontier Dispute case (Burkina Faso v. Mali) (1986) ICJ Rep. pp. 554, at pp. 656
167. Continental Shelf (Tunisia v. Libya) ICJ Rep. (1982) pp. 18, 65-66.
168. Fisheries Jurisdiction case (Jurisdiction) (United Kingdom v. Iceland), ICJ Rep. (1974) pp. 3.
169. I.F.I. Shihata and W.T. Onorato, ‘The Joint Development of International Petroleum Resources in Undefined and Disputed Areas’, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 11 (1996) pp. 299-317, at pp. 299.
170. UNTAET, Daily Press Briefing, Dili, 12 April 2001, accessed at: http://www.un.org/peace/etimor.
171. M.D. Blecher, ‘Equitable Delimitation of Continental Shelf’, 73 AJIL (1979) pp. 60-88
172. B. Kwiatkowska, ‘Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation - A Legal Perspective’, 3 International Journal of Estuarine (now Marine) and Coastal Law (1988) pp. 287-304
173. P. Weil, The Law of Maritime Delimitation - Reflections (Cambridge, Grotius Publications 1989)
174. S.P. Sharma, Delimitation of Land and Sea Boundaries Between Neighbouring Countries (New Delhi, Lancers Books 1989).
175. G.A. McKee, ‘The New Timor Gap: Will Australia now break with the past?’, No. 62 Inside Indonesia (April-June 2000)
176. R. Tanter, M. Selden and S.R. Shalom, ‘East Timor Faces the Future’, Vol. 32, Nos. 1 & 2 Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars (January-June 2000) pp. 113-124, especially at pp. 118-120.
177. M. Herriman and M. Tsamenyi, ‘The 1997 Australia-Indonesia Maritime Boundary Treaty: A Secure Legal Regime for Offshore Resource Development?’, 29 Ocean Development & International Law (1998) pp. 361-396.
178. R.R. Churchill and A.V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3rd edn. (Manchester, Manchester University Press 1999) at pp. 196.
179. North Sea Continental Shelf cases, for example. See ICJ Rep. (1969) at pp. 43-44, paras. 75-77.
180. S.B. Kaye, ‘Multiple Boundaries in Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Problems of Common Jurisdiction’, in Australia and New Zealand Societies of International Law (ANZSIL) Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference. 1998 (Canberra, Centre for International and Public Law (CIPL), Australian National University 1999) pp. 185-193.
181. Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libya v. Malta), Judgment, ICJ Rep. (1985) pp. 13, at pp. 43-46 and 49-50.
182. E.D. Brown, ‘The Libya-Malta Continental Shelf Case (1985)’, in B. Cheng and E.D. Brown, eds., Contemporary Problems of International Law: Essays in honour of Georg Schwarzenberger on his eightieth birthday (London, Stevens & Sons 1988) pp. 3-18, at pp. 14-15
183. G.A. McKee, ‘The New Timor Gap: Will Australia now break with the past?’, No. 62 Inside Indonesia (2000).
184. J.C. Woodliffe, ‘International Unitization of an Offshore Gas Field’, 26 ICLQ (1977) at pp. 338.
185. J. Traub, ‘Inventing East Timor’, Vol. 79, No. 4, Foreign Affairs (2000) pp. 74-89, at pp. 88.
186. M. Dodd, Sydney Morning Herald, Australia newspaper (May 2000).