ABSTRACT
As this chapter concludes, the book's research has shown that though the achievements of UNCLOS are much heralded, the shortcomings of the Convention are neither trivial nor inconsequential. The absence of clear guidance for delimitation of maritime zones, especially when the overlapping claim areas have hydrocarbon resources, has, unsurprisingly, encouraged disputing States to maximise their claims, resulting in rising tensions and negotiation impasse for many unresolved disputes. A significant finding of the research is that the most frequent resolution methodology was not a negotiated delimitation agreement, but a solution largely overlooked by UNCLOS – a semi-permanent Joint Development Area (JDA) agreement with prescriptive resource-sharing mechanisms. The study also identified the Achilles heel of the UNCLOS dispute resolution procedures – the ability of a State to opt out of compulsory procedures for boundary disputes. The research data shows that a boundary dispute involving a State that has made this opt-out declaration is six times more likely to remain unresolved than a dispute that does not involve a declaration State. The chapter recommends that any future updates or amendments to UNCLOS should include prescriptive JDA formation instructions following a standard model agreement.
