An example is the law of the sea which is a set of legal norms governing relations between States and dealing with the coast. With specifications, namely 12 miles from the territorial sea boundary of Trinidad and 12 miles from the southeast of the island of Tobago. It is the easternmost of the Caribbean archipelago, bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean.
Deposits of petroleum and natural gas give Trinidad and Tobago one of the highest per capita income levels in Latin America. The right of the coastal state to the continental shelf does not depend on the population (occupation), whether it is effective or impermanent (national) or on a clear proclamation. As for the rights of other countries on the continental shelf and requirements for submarine cables and pipelines, based on the 1982 Law of the Sea, which can determine: All countries have the right to lay underwater cables and pipes on the continental shelf.
Determine the path to finance the installation of deep-sea pipelines in such a way that on the continental shelf such approval of the coastline must be obtained.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The main purpose of the State is to tighten the issue regarding the boundaries of the continents which is none other than because they will use the natural resources for the welfare of their own people. Both the sea and the coast that have the potential to be associated with abundant natural resources will not be in vain, because they also help the rotation of the economy in this country. In exercising its rights and fulfilling its obligations under this Convention in the EEZ, the coastal State must take due account of the rights and obligations of other States and must act in a manner in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
In exercising their rights and fulfilling their obligations under this convention in the EEZ, states must pay due attention to the rights and obligations of the coastal state and must comply with the laws and regulations established by the coastal state in accordance with this convention and other international legal regulations insofar as these provisions do not conflict with the provisions of this chapter. In the case where this convention does not give rights or jurisdiction to the coastal state or other countries in the EEZ, and a dispute arises between the interests of the coastal state and other countries or other countries, the dispute must be resolved based on justice and with consideration. The boundaries of the EEZ between countries whose coasts are connected or opposite can be made by agreement according to international law in order to obtain a just and equitable solution.
Regarding the method used to determine the boundaries of the waters which are included in the EEZ, several matters relating to the technique of determining the boundaries of the waters have been proposed by the international law commission in 1951, regarding national baselines and water boundaries between countries. The continental shelf in UNCLOS 1982 is regulated in chapter VI articles 76-85 which defines the continental shelf of a coastal state as covering the seabed and subsoil thereof from the area below sea level which lies outside its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land area to the outer edge of the continental margin. That information regarding the boundaries of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines used to determine the breadth of the territorial sea must be submitted by the coastal State to the basis of equitable geographical representation.
The coastal state is also required to deposit relevant maps and information including geodetic data permanently delineating the outer limits of its continental shelf with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the waters above it or the air space above the waters. The exercise of the rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf shall not reduce or cause any unreasonable interference with navigation and other rights and freedoms of other States as provided for in this Convention.
These sovereign rights are exclusive, in the sense that if the coastal state does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one can carry out these activities without the consent of the coastal state. The rights of the coastal state over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, whether effective or not permanent (notional) or on any express proclamation.
LEGAL FORMS OF MARITIME DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 1. Negotiations
During negotiations, the parties maintain control over a series of very important issues including the precise outcome of delimited boundaries, the way in which lines are being defined, the terms and timing of the agreement and the way the agreement is presented publicly. Conciliation is provided for in Section 15 of the Law of the Sea Convention but is almost never used by States. The 1981 Iceland/Norway Continental Shelf Dispute Regarding Jay Mayen Island is one of the few conciliations ever recorded.
Under Annex VII of the Law of the Sea Convention, the court consists of 5 arbitrators, each party to the dispute appoints one arbitrator and they jointly appoint the remaining three. The Law of the Sea Convention does not, by itself, seek to address the issue of sovereignty over territory. For example, in the Arbitration of the Chagos Archipelago, Mauritius claimed that the government of the UK archipelago was unlawful, and that the territory of Mauritius should include the Chagos Archipelago.
China arbitration, the Philippines challenged China's activities in the South China Sea and Seabed Territories and argued that China's claims to the territory bounded by the "Nine- Dash Line" were invalid under the Law of the Sea Convention. China rejects the jurisdiction of this court, among others, on the grounds that the essence of the subject matter of the dispute is sovereignty. Countries are using arbitration more and more because of the speedy courts that issue decisions and give parties a lot of control over the procedure.
And in this case, the prosecution also found that the equidistance line was west of the line between Barbados vsTrinidad and Tobago. Second, the problem of returning the center point extends from point D of Barbados claiming point A of the claims of Trinidad and Tobago. And in the end the court stated that first we will determine the boundaries of the continent and the EEZ as far as the claims overlap, without seeing any separate law between the EEZ and the continent.
COMPARISON 1. Areas of Consideration
Arbitration is one way or alternative dispute resolution that has been known for a long time in international law. Arbitration itself is also a form of justice that is held based on the good faith of the disputing parties so that the resolution of this problem can be resolved by a judge they will choose and appoint themselves. And for settlement through arbitration, it can be done in several ways, namely settlement by an institutionalized arbitrator (institutionalized) or ad hoc arbitration body (temporary).9.
International law also always monitors countries in the world such as whether there are problems or disputes, including in disputes about sovereign boundaries that very often occur between two neighboring countries.10Then in the case between Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados, this arbitration in international law continues to mediate between the two neighboring countries to avoid something happening in the future.11 Based on the United Nations document containing funding for the "Report of International Choice. See also Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, "Konsepsi Hukum Negara Nusantara Pada Konperensi Hukum Laut Ke-III." Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 33, No. Arbitration" regarding Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in chapter IV: Jurisdiction occurring at 30 points of the Jurisdiction result.
CONCLUSION
However, Barbados fishermen are caught by Trinidad and are considered illegal fishing, we think Trinidad is only doing political action here to become a powerful country, because since 1988-2004 this has been happening and has been repeated from both Barbados and Trinidad. My analysis here is that Barbados makes a claim that is not in accordance with the provisions of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention article 52, which should be an exclusive economic zone that should be 200 miles from the baseline and that Barbados claim is entirely the property of Trinidad and Tobago. In the agreement Barbados and Trinidad do not determine the boundaries of the EEZ and its continental shelf, starting from this I say that there should be renegotiation between Barbados and Trinidad for the determination of these boundaries in accordance with articles 74 and 83.
In each EEZ jurisdiction and the continental shelf, the state has the exclusive right, namely, to regulate everything related to the exploitation of its natural resources except with the consent of the coastal state. Here the author agrees with the decision of the judges that the compromise deed must be updated in great detail with good faith, understanding, and high cooperation to each country, starting from the determination of boundaries, and other agreements. 34;UNCLOS and its limitations as the foundation for a regional maritime security regime." The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis 19, No.
34;Territorial sovereignty issues in maritime disputes: a jurisdictional dilemma for law of the sea tribunals." The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 27, No. 34;Law Enforcement Issues and Regulations in Undelimited Maritime Boundaries: An International Law Perspective." Lentera Hukum 7, No. 34;Analisis garis alternatif batas kewenangan pengelolaan wilayah laut antara Provinsi Papua Barat dengan Provinsi Maluku Utara secara kartometrik." Jurnal Ilmiah Geomatika 23, No.
34;The 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award: A landmark in compulsory jurisdiction and equitable maritime boundary delimitation." The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 22, No. 34;The Landmark 2006 Unclos Annex Vii Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Maritime Delimitation (Jurisdiction & Merits) Award." The George Washington International Law Review 39, No. 34;Yurisdiksi Negara Pantai di Wilayah Delimitasi Maritim Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif yang Belum Ditetapkan Berdasarkan Ketentuan Hukum Laut Internasional (Study di Timor Leste-Indonesia)." Jurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH) 6, No.
Mahatma Gandhi