Settling Maritime Boundaries: Why Some Countries Find It Easy, and Others Do Not

Abstract

Previously neglected maritime boundary disputes are acquiring newfound economic, political, and academic significance. Rising sea levels, changing distributions of marine natural resources, and growing demand for those resources have combined to create a ‘perfect storm’ for policy-making, diplomacy, and research. When surveying the world’s maritime boundaries, it becomes clear that hundreds of disputes have been resolved. However, why states resolve their disputes, and with what motivation, is often unclear. Most studies describe the process as a matter of legal technicalities, driven by economic interests. As Douglas Johnston argues, boundary-making in the ocean is functionalist: done with an eye towards the functional usage of the maritime space itself.1 Yet hundreds of maritime disputes remain unresolved. The existence of a dispute can hinder the economic exploitation of offshore resources such as oil and gas and complicate the management of transboundary fish stocks. In other instances, maritime boundary disputes contribute to larger international tensions and conflicts. States do not necessarily resolve boundary disputes for functional purposes whenever it is convenient to do so. Instead, a number of factors may hinder or facilitate dispute resolution.