Pub Date : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1163/26660229_03601003
Benjamin Huntley, Amelia Telec, J. Whyatt
In March 2018, Australia and Timor-Leste signed a treaty in a ceremony in New York, witnessed by the UN Secretary-General, which will permanently delimit their maritime boundaries and establish a special regime over the Greater Sunrise gas fields in the Timor Sea. Not only does this Treaty represent an important milestone in the relationship between the two States, it also marks the successful conclusion of the first-ever conciliation conducted under the dispute resolution provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos). How this untested process led to the ending of the long-running and complex dispute over maritime delimitation in the Timor Sea merits further consideration. This article will provide an Australian perspective on these historic proceedings, focussing on how the process led to a positive outcome for the Parties and the key features of the agreement reached. We will begin by outlining briefly the background to the dispute between Australia and Timor-Leste. We will then consider the nature of the conciliation provisions of unclos, and what makes them unique. We will then explore some of the procedural aspects of the Timor-Leste/Australia Conciliation which led to a successful outcome in the proceedings. Finally, we will outline the key elements of the agreement reached between the Parties.
{"title":"The Timor Sea Treaty: An Australian Perspective","authors":"Benjamin Huntley, Amelia Telec, J. Whyatt","doi":"10.1163/26660229_03601003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In March 2018, Australia and Timor-Leste signed a treaty in a ceremony in New York, witnessed by the UN Secretary-General, which will permanently delimit their maritime boundaries and establish a special regime over the Greater Sunrise gas fields in the Timor Sea. Not only does this Treaty represent an important milestone in the relationship between the two States, it also marks the successful conclusion of the first-ever conciliation conducted under the dispute resolution provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos). How this untested process led to the ending of the long-running and complex dispute over maritime delimitation in the Timor Sea merits further consideration. This article will provide an Australian perspective on these historic proceedings, focussing on how the process led to a positive outcome for the Parties and the key features of the agreement reached. We will begin by outlining briefly the background to the dispute between Australia and Timor-Leste. We will then consider the nature of the conciliation provisions of unclos, and what makes them unique. We will then explore some of the procedural aspects of the Timor-Leste/Australia Conciliation which led to a successful outcome in the proceedings. Finally, we will outline the key elements of the agreement reached between the Parties.","PeriodicalId":119796,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117062720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1163/26660229_03601006
Yoshifumi Tanaka
The aim of this Agora contribution is to examine the role of conciliation in maritime delimitation by analysing the Timor-Leste/Australia conciliation. First, this contribution addresses the applicability of the compulsory conciliation procedures to the Timor Sea dispute. It then considers the role of the Timor-Leste/Australia Conciliation Commission in maritime delimitation and in resource governance, respectively. Next, it examines role of conciliation in maritime delimitation by comparing the Timor-Leste/Australia conciliation to the Iceland/Jan Mayen conciliation. Finally, it reveals that the Timor-Leste/Australia Conciliation Commission significantly influenced the establishment of maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea.
{"title":"Maritime Boundary Delimitation by Conciliation","authors":"Yoshifumi Tanaka","doi":"10.1163/26660229_03601006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601006","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this Agora contribution is to examine the role of conciliation in maritime delimitation by analysing the Timor-Leste/Australia conciliation. First, this contribution addresses the applicability of the compulsory conciliation procedures to the Timor Sea dispute. It then considers the role of the Timor-Leste/Australia Conciliation Commission in maritime delimitation and in resource governance, respectively. Next, it examines role of conciliation in maritime delimitation by comparing the Timor-Leste/Australia conciliation to the Iceland/Jan Mayen conciliation. Finally, it reveals that the Timor-Leste/Australia Conciliation Commission significantly influenced the establishment of maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea.","PeriodicalId":119796,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128330003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1163/26660229_03601020
{"title":"Australian Treaty Action 2017","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/26660229_03601020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601020","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":119796,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124340689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1163/26660229_03601013
{"title":"The Law of Armed Conflict and the Use of Force: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/26660229_03601013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601013","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":119796,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129512725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1163/26660229_03601018
Frances Anggadi, Benjamin Huntley, Rhianna Benjamin, Lauren Burke, Sarah Grant, Andrea Gronke, Tess Kluckow, Alicia Lewis, Trina Malone, Pranamie Mandalawatta, H. Matley, A. Norris, Kate O'connell, Amparo Santiago, Lucy Sargeson, Ashlee Uren
{"title":"Australian Legislation concerning Matters of International Law 2017","authors":"Frances Anggadi, Benjamin Huntley, Rhianna Benjamin, Lauren Burke, Sarah Grant, Andrea Gronke, Tess Kluckow, Alicia Lewis, Trina Malone, Pranamie Mandalawatta, H. Matley, A. Norris, Kate O'connell, Amparo Santiago, Lucy Sargeson, Ashlee Uren","doi":"10.1163/26660229_03601018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":119796,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127666165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1163/26660229_03601001
{"title":"Preliminary material","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/26660229_03601001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":119796,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121989869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1163/26660229_03601015
Eric Heinze, M. Fitzmaurice
Foreword. Preface. 1: Customary Law, General Principles and Subsidiary Sources. 2: Jus cogens, Obligations Erga omnes, Actio popularis, International Crimes and Self-Determination. 3: Treaties. 4: Personality and Statehood. 5: State Responsibility. 6: Jurisdiction. 7: Settlement of Disputes. 8: International Organisations. 9: Use of Force.
{"title":"Landmark Cases in Public International Law","authors":"Eric Heinze, M. Fitzmaurice","doi":"10.1163/26660229_03601015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601015","url":null,"abstract":"Foreword. Preface. 1: Customary Law, General Principles and Subsidiary Sources. 2: Jus cogens, Obligations Erga omnes, Actio popularis, International Crimes and Self-Determination. 3: Treaties. 4: Personality and Statehood. 5: State Responsibility. 6: Jurisdiction. 7: Settlement of Disputes. 8: International Organisations. 9: Use of Force.","PeriodicalId":119796,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121774611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1163/26660229_03601019
{"title":"Australian Practice in International Law 2017","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/26660229_03601019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601019","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":119796,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133488200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1163/26660229_03601008
J. Lim
Recently, ‘social protection’ has attracted attention as a powerful tool for poverty alleviation. For example, Target 1.3 of the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals calls for nationally appropriate social protection systems for all. However, ‘social protection’ has defied common definition to date. Rather, it can denote very different anti-poverty approaches, policies, beneficiaries and end goals. This lack of clarity has led to confusion and contestation between international institutional actors, including the International Monetary Fund and International Labour Organization. By historically tracing the development of ‘social protection’ within the economics, human rights, development and labour ‘transnational legal orders’, this article argues that different usages reflect diverse and enduring discourses about the root causes of poverty and most effective solutions. In particular, neoliberalism continues to inform the work of international financial institutions, in a way that is misaligned with human rights understandings. This article proposes a new paradigm to advance engagement between different orders, being ‘social protection as dialogue’, to achieve more meaningful legal developments.
{"title":"Social Protection as Dialogue in Transnational Legal Ordering","authors":"J. Lim","doi":"10.1163/26660229_03601008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Recently, ‘social protection’ has attracted attention as a powerful tool for poverty alleviation. For example, Target 1.3 of the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals calls for nationally appropriate social protection systems for all. However, ‘social protection’ has defied common definition to date. Rather, it can denote very different anti-poverty approaches, policies, beneficiaries and end goals. This lack of clarity has led to confusion and contestation between international institutional actors, including the International Monetary Fund and International Labour Organization.\u0000By historically tracing the development of ‘social protection’ within the economics, human rights, development and labour ‘transnational legal orders’, this article argues that different usages reflect diverse and enduring discourses about the root causes of poverty and most effective solutions. In particular, neoliberalism continues to inform the work of international financial institutions, in a way that is misaligned with human rights understandings. This article proposes a new paradigm to advance engagement between different orders, being ‘social protection as dialogue’, to achieve more meaningful legal developments.","PeriodicalId":119796,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129073005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1163/26660229_03601009
A. Devereux
This article explores Australia’s journey to ratification of the ICESCR and ICCPR. From a somewhat languorous consideration of the Covenants following their adoption by the General Assembly in 1966, the Australian federal government moved to enthusiastically support signature and ratification after the election of the Whitlam government. However, tensions over federal-State demarcations and the potential use of the external affairs power stymied progress. It was not until the Fraser government period that each Covenant was ratified. Exploring this history reveals the depth of divisions concerning respective roles of the Commonwealth and the States in the human rights arena and highlights the role of ‘lighter’ interpretations of obligations in facilitating consensus.
{"title":"Australia’s Journey to Ratification of the ICESCR and ICCPR","authors":"A. Devereux","doi":"10.1163/26660229_03601009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article explores Australia’s journey to ratification of the ICESCR and ICCPR. From a somewhat languorous consideration of the Covenants following their adoption by the General Assembly in 1966, the Australian federal government moved to enthusiastically support signature and ratification after the election of the Whitlam government. However, tensions over federal-State demarcations and the potential use of the external affairs power stymied progress. It was not until the Fraser government period that each Covenant was ratified. Exploring this history reveals the depth of divisions concerning respective roles of the Commonwealth and the States in the human rights arena and highlights the role of ‘lighter’ interpretations of obligations in facilitating consensus.","PeriodicalId":119796,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126007651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：