Arof, Amin Md --- "Integrated Management and Sustainable Development of Coastal and Marine Areas in Southeast Asia" [2000] MarStudies 30; (2000) 115 Maritime Studies 6

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Maritime Studies

Southeast Asia is a unique sub-region in many ways. Most importantly, the ten countries of the sub-region do not share any cultural or religious homogeneity or proclaim attachment to common political values as a basis for regional identity. This lack of homogeneity ranges from the predominantly Chinese Singapore that is surrounded by its mainly Malay/Muslim neighbours of Indonesia and Malaysia to the three countries of Indo-China,^[1] Thailand and Myanmar to the north of the sub-region that do not share any cultural affinity with each other except for their respective versions of Buddhism. The Philippines, originally from the same indigenous origin as Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia, is a predominantly Christian nation. Politically, Vietnam and Laos are still being ruled by Communist regimes whilst Myanmar remains as one of the few countries in the world ruled by a military junta. Brunei is also different from her sub-regional neighbours with an absolute monarchy system of government whilst the democracies of Indonesia and Cambodia are still in their infancy stage.

Before the Second World War, the countries of Southeast Asia were ruled by several Western Powers notably the British in Brunei, Malaysia, Myanmar and Singapore, the French in Indochina, the Dutch in Indonesia whilst the Philippines had been ruled by Spain and the United States (US). The legacies of the colonial powers included seeds that later grew to spark sub-regional mistrust and tension among neighbouring states. Despite the overwhelming diversities, eight of the nine sub-regional states, except for Laos, share something in common. They are all coastal states in a strategically located sub-region, the waterways of which link the Pacific with the Indian Ocean. Adding to the common interests of the nine states, their coasts are washed by the semi-enclosed seas of the South China Sea, Gulf of Thailand and Andaman Sea which are very sensitive to coastal and marine mismanagement. This is a significant difference from other regional countries such as Australia and New Zealand that are mainly surrounded by open oceans.

This paper will examine the factors that inhibit the process of integrated management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas in Southeast Asia. These factors comprise different colonial legacies, overlapping maritime jurisdictions, economic priorities and lack of environmental awareness. The paper will also recommend several approaches that can arguably enhance sub-regional cooperation to overcome the above problems. Any effort that would lead towards an integrated or holistic approach in the management of coastal and marine areas is considered to be within the scope of this research. The focus of this paper will be on inter-state cooperation to manage the marine and coastal zones at a sub-regional level rather than the problems faced by the various states at their national level. It will nevertheless, cover certain aspects of national problems or achievements that can contribute towards an improvement in sub-regional cooperation. Since all the states of Southeast Asia are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the two terms, ASEAN and Southeast Asia will be used interchangeably in this paper.

The Legacy of Western Colonisation

The legacy of Western colonisation still endures in many respects in Southeast Asia long after the Western powers were compelled to retreat from the sub-region. The legacy of the West includes the mass migration of ethnic Chinese and Indians into the sub-region that converted Southeast Asia into a much more pluralistic society. For example, Singapore which historically belongs to the Malay Archipelago, is now a Chinese dominated state whilst the indigenous citizens of Malaysia were almost overwhelmed by the Chinese and Indian immigrants in the years prior to the racial riot of the infamous 13th May 1969.^[2] Despite the usual rhetoric of ASEAN solidarity by the ruling elite of its member states, it is not a hidden secret that Singapore continuously harbours a deep apprehension about its Muslim neighbours.

The delimitation of boundaries left behind by the colonial powers has also led to pluralistic societies being enclosed within one national boundary. These occurrences not only exacerbate the problems of nation-building and consolidating state powers from within, but also create tension and mistrust between neighbouring states. Two vivid examples of this problem are the separatist movements in Southern Thailand and Southern Philippines. Since the Muslim people in these areas have strong cultural and religious bonds with the other predominantly Muslim states within the sub-region, the feeling of mistrust between the sub-regional states is arguably deeply entrenched in most of the politicians and bureaucrats of the states involved. Although this is a general problem in inter-state relations rather than a specific problem of a maritime nature, it is very significant since it has become one of the major inhibiting factors that has prevented cooperation amongst the Southeast Asian states since their independence. Although ASEAN was formed in 1967 to bring together the presently more developed Southeast Asian states of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, the success of the organisation throughout the 1970s and 1980s was seen more as containing inter-state disputes rather than solving them.^[3] This allowed the respective governments to effectively strengthen their control within their respective countries.^[4]

Overlapping Jurisdiction in the Maritime Area

The overlapping claims over islands and waters in the sub-region started from the legacy left behind by the colonial powers. Nevertheless, the issue of overlapping jurisdiction both at sea and on land was mostly contained by the sub-regional states since they were pre-occupied with the heavy tasks of nation-building and national integration during the early decades of their independence. Amongst the conflicting claims caused by the legacy of Western colonisation that still prevail are the claim to the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan in the Celebes Sea by Malaysia and Indonesia; the claim to Pulau Batu Putih in the southwestern tip of the South China Sea by Malaysia and Singapore; the contest over Phu-Quoc Island in the Gulf of Thailand between Cambodia and Vietnam,^[5] the contest over the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea between China and Vietnam,^[6] and a boundary delimitation problem on the inner segment of the territorial sea between Myanmar and Thailand in the Andaman Sea.^[7]

The problem of overlapping jurisdiction was further exacerbated by the introduction of new maritime regimes such as the Continental Shelf Convention of 1958 and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) regime introduced through the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) of 1982. Continental Shelf and EEZ claims have resulted in overlapping jurisdiction over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea involving Brunei, Malaysia and the Philippines^[8] joining Vietnam, China and Taiwan who were already claimants on historical basis. Overlapping EEZ/Continental Shelf boundaries also occur in the Gulf of Thailand between Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand;^[9] in the South China Sea between Malaysia and Vietnam; and between Indonesia and Vietnam north of Indonesia’s Natuna Islands.

Overlapping jurisdiction over the maritime areas has arguably inhibited inter-state cooperation to implement integrated management of marine and coastal zones at a sub-regional level since there is a recognition within the sub-region that an encroachment into the disputed waters may spark further regional tension. One vivid example of the impact of lack of sub-regional cooperation in marine and coastal management is the dramatic decline of fish stocks in the Gulf of Thailand since the 1960s. The mechanisation of Thailand’s fishing fleet has been mainly blamed for it,^[10] but another factor is the lack of inter-state coordination to implement a holistic approach in coastal development. This has resulted in the decline of mangrove forests to the extent of 60 per cent in Thailand and 63 per cent in Vietnam.^[11] Unless these problems of disputed jurisdiction are recognised and solved by the parties involved, the process to implement integrated marine and coastal zone management at a sub-regional level will continue to be difficult.

Two vivid examples of inter-state cooperation in the management of marine areas in waters where maritime boundaries have been delineated or at least when the overlapping jurisdiction has been recognised by the parties involved, are evident in the sub-region. In the Straits of Malacca, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have provided an outstanding example of integrated co-management of ocean space particularly in ensuring navigational safety, protection of the marine environment and combating piracy. The joint efforts include the ‘Agreement on Safety of Navigation in the Strait of Malacca’ imposing regulations such as a uniform Under Keel Clearance, imposition of a 12-knot speed limit for deep draught vessels, the delineation of the Traffic Separation Scheme and improvement of navigational aids, as well as the implementation of a joint policy to deal with marine pollution.^[12] The consensus by the three states has also allowed the Risk Assessment and Management project in the Malacca Strait to be launched.^[13] Similarly, a recognition of overlapping jurisdiction between Malaysia and Thailand in the Gulf of Thailand led to the development of a Joint Development Area (JDA) aimed at benefiting both countries whilst waiting for a permanent settlement. Besides generating economic benefits, the JDA is also expected to facilitate an effective integrated co-management of the marine area and the adjacent coastal zone. This is demonstrated by the cautious approach taken by both Governments in the implementation of a joint oil exploration in the JDA due to recent strong protests by certain environmentalist groups in Thailand.^[14]

Economic Priorities

Except for ASEAN’s two smallest states of Brunei and Singapore, the other eight states are either developing or under-developed. Brunei is an oil-rich sultanate that generates most of its revenues through oil exports whilst Singapore is widely identified as the one of the economic tigers of Asia. The GDP and GDP per capita of the sub-regional states in 1994 are shown in Table 1. In fact, due to the Asian monetary crisis of 1997, the GDP of most of the states in US$ at present is significantly lower. A good example is the GDP per capita of Cambodia, which currently stands at only US$280.^[15] Beyond doubt, the developing status of most of the states has left little room for the states to ignore economic development that is mainly concentrated within the coastal areas and in many instances at the expense of the coastal and marine environment. This is evident in the way in which Thailand and Vietnam have lost a significant portion of their mangrove forests, Singapore has recorded a loss of 99 per cent, the Philippines 70 per cent, Indonesia 32 per cent and Malaysia has lost 25 per cent to give way to logging activities as well as coastal development projects such as oil and gas production, port development, tourism and land-reclamation for industrial sites.^[16] There is in fact

Table 1
GDP and GDP per capita for ASEAN States
(1994 Estimates)^[17]

Country	GDP (US$ billion)	GDP/Capita (US$)
Brunei	6.47	30,447
Cambodia	2.77	660
Indonesia	174.6	3,740
Laos	1.5	2,484
Malaysia	70.6	8,865
Myanmar	79.2	600
Philippines	64.2	2,681
Singapore	68.96	20,987
Thailand	143.2	7,104
Vietnam	15.6	1,208

strong evidence that poverty is among the primary causes of the degradation of coastal environments in Indonesia.^[18] Similarly in other less fortunate Southeast Asian countries (with lower GDP/capita) such as Cambodia, Vietnam and even Thailand, economic development has taken precedence over the coastal and marine environment even to the extent of the lack of Environmental Impact Assessment and proper land-use planning.^[19] Pre-occupation with economic development at national level and lack of coordination at sub-regional level have generally left integrated marine management and sustainable coastal development in the Southeast Asia sub-region as a purely academic discussion at various sub-regional forums until the last decade or so.

Lack of Environmental Awareness

Lack of environmental awareness is clearly evident in the sub-region. Malaysia, which is considered amongst the leading sub-regional countries in implementing an integrated marine and coastal zone management approach at national level, arguably only started to put in serious effort to protect the coastal and marine environment in the 1980s, despite the availability of comprehensive legislation in the form of an Environmental Quality Act of 1974. The measures taken that reflect Malaysia’s awareness of the importance of integrated marine and coastal zone management include the establishment of marine parks and prohibited fisheries areas in 1985, mandatory requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment for coastal development in 1988, and regulations on the control of scheduled wastes formulated in 1989.^[20] Similarly, in Southeast Asia’s most populous country, Indonesia, greater awareness in implementing a holistic approach to coastal and marine management can only be traced to the introduction of the Second Long Term Development Programme (1993-2018).^[21] Prior to 1993, policies, programs and projects related to coastal and marine development were not integrated and frequently resulted in conflicts among competing uses, unnecessary destruction of natural resources and degradation of environmental quality.^[22] The development of environmental awareness started much later in the relatively less developed economies of Cambodia and Vietnam. In Vietnam, for instance, integrated marine and coastal management awareness in coastal industries and communities has been reported as quite low, whilst the Environmental Impact Assessment for projects in marine and coastal zones is only newly introduced in the mid-1990s.^[23]

The lack of awareness amongst the ASEAN states has lead to the late realisation of the importance of an integrated and marine and coastal management at a sub-regional level. It was only in the 1990s that marine environmental issues began to be seriously discussed at an ASEAN level. ASEAN efforts can be traced from the Kuala Lumpur Accord on Environment and Development adopted on 19 June 1990 which called for, inter alia, efforts leading towards the harmonisation of transboundary pollution prevention and abatement practices.^[24] Similarly the Strategic Plan of Action on the Environment 1994-1998 which, amongst others, was undertaken to promote protection and management of coastal zones and marine resources was only endorsed on 26 April 1994.^[25] Although all the ASEAN states have somehow agreed that they should accede to the Basel Convention and ratify the Marine Pollution Convention (MARPOL) as part of joint efforts to enhance cooperation on transboundary pollution,^[26] the response from the member states thus far is still far from impressive. Until now, Brunei, Cambodia and Myanmar have not acceded to the Basel Convention.^[27] Similarly the Philippines and Thailand are still non-parties to any of the MARPOL provisions whilst Brunei, Indonesia and Vietnam are only parties to Annexes I (Oil Pollution) and II (Liquid Noxious Substances).^[28] These failures to give undertakings in respect of preserving the marine areas of the sub-region may reflect the lack of awareness of the urgency required to protect the sub-regional seas and coastal areas from further deterioration. Nevertheless, the lack of financial resources^[29] which is required to implement the above Conventions is also argued as an important factor that inhibits states from acceding or completely acceding to the Conventions.

Future Prospects

Notwithstanding the above inhibiting factors, there is definitely some progress both in the efforts by the sub-regional states to enhance the integrated and sustainable marine and coastal management at their national level, as well as in the bilateral and multilateral cooperation adopted within the context of ASEAN. At the national level, even ASEAN’s poorest economy and military regime of Myanmar has begun to realise the importance of a holistic approach towards marine and coastal management with their recent effort to rehabilitate the mangroves areas in the Irrawaddy Delta.^[30] Similarly in ASEAN’s second poorest economy of Cambodia, more integrated efforts in marine and coastal zone management can be seen from the creation of the Ministry of the Environment and the Inter-ministerial Environment Committee in mid-1990s.^[31]

At ASEAN level, besides the frequent rhetoric of sub-regional cooperation on the environment since the Manila Declaration in 1981, real efforts have only begun to be implemented since the 1990s. Amongst the most significant projects taken by ASEAN are the ASEAN-United States (US) coastal development pilot project in South Johor, Malaysia and the ASEAN sponsored coastal area management plan for Lingayen Gulf in the Philippines. ASEAN should also be given credit for initiating the intergovernmental Coordinating Body for the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) which has now been expanded to include countries such as Australia, China and the Republic of Korea.^[32] Similarly, eight of the ASEAN countries have participated in a new regional program of Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) to ensure the seas of East Asia are able to continue contributing to the well-being of the people in October 1999.^[33]

In spite of the above initiatives, available information on the actual implementation of some of the projects launched is quite sketchy.^[34] In addition many of the marine and coastal zone management programs implemented in the sub-region either under the auspices of ASEAN or the Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas are fully or partly funded by foreign governments or international agencies. Amongst them are integrated management project in Batangas Bay, Philippines,^[35] the ASEAN-CANADA Cooperative Programme on Marine Science (CPMS),^[36] the ASEAN-EU project on Interdisciplinary Methodologies for the Sustainable Use and Management of Coastal Resource Systems,^[37] and the Coastal Zone Environmental and Resources Management Project (CZERMP) which was implemented under the ASEAN-Australia Economic Cooperation Programme (AAECP).^[38] Even the newly established PEMSEA is mainly funded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) albeit with some financial contribution by the participating governments.^[39]

Since national awareness and sub-regional cooperation have been established, albeit still at infancy stage, further efforts to enhance sub-regional cooperation may not be as difficult. History has proven that nations although of diverse cultural background normally unite to face a common enemy. In this context the enemy is the environmental threat to the marine and coastal zone that will depress the livelihood of the people. Having to face a common threat to their shores and marine areas in the Strait of Malacca, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have quite effectively implemented measures to safeguard their marine and coastal environment. Similar cooperation could be extended to other threatened areas within the sub-region such as in the Gulf of Thailand by expanding the newly introduced International Cooperative Study of the Gulf of Thailand^[40] into a more meaningful vehicle where Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam could cooperate in the co-management of the Gulf. The overlapping jurisdiction between the three parties can be translated into an avenue for cooperation rather than as an inhibitor. Whilst boundary delimitation could be difficult to achieve, efforts could be made by conflicting parties to define the areas in dispute. It is also envisaged that amongst the less sensitive forms of cooperation that can be implemented in disputed waters is the cooperation to co-manage the marine environment. The success of this joint effort could be extended to the harmonisation of national policies in adjacent waters and coastal zones under the various national jurisdictions. ASEAN should also be ready to implement similar projects, even without funding from developed countries or international organisations, through contribution by the various governments as well as by the users of the seas. With the increasing dependence of the newly developing economies of Cambodia and Vietnam on neighbouring Malaysia,^[41] Singapore^[42] and Thailand as major investors in the two countries, there is arguably no better time for the more developed economies of ASEAN to convince the other partners of the benefits of such cooperation.

Besides the Gulf of Thailand, similar cooperation could also be implemented in the Andaman Sea, between India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar; and in the South China Sea between the conflicting parties in the Spratly Islands. Nevertheless, cooperation in the latter marine area is rather difficult due to the extensive nature of the claim made by China that covers almost the entire South China Sea. Notwithstanding this difficulty, it is envisaged that one of the very few modes of cooperation that is feasible in the area is the co-management of the waters where overlapping claims of three or more parties exist.^[43] This would then trigger the harmonisation of efforts in the adjacent marine and coastal areas under jurisdiction of the states surrounding the South China Sea. Since the participation of the various conflicting ASEAN states may create apprehension on the part of China, which is very concerned about any effort that may lead to a stronger justification of sovereignty among the other parties,^[44] it would be wise if the co-management effort is done between ASEAN (or an ASEAN appointed Non-Government Organisation) with a Beijing appointed organisation. Multilateral cooperation in integrated management in marine areas can be started with the full or part implementation of the provisions of MARPOL.

Conclusion

In retrospect, it can be seen that the legacies of Western colonisation, overlapping maritime jurisdiction, economic priority, and a lack of environmental awareness have contributed to the lack of sub-regional cooperation in the implementation of an integrated management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas in the Southeast Asia sub-region. Nevertheless, the growing strength of ASEAN as an organisation and greater cooperation amongst ASEAN states are expected to contribute towards more openness in solving sensitive issues such as maritime boundaries and disputes over islands,^[45] the important pre-requisites that would lead towards other forms of maritime cooperation. This will be a way forward for ASEAN from the earlier practice of ‘sweeping problems under the carpet’.^[46] Whilst openness amongst ASEAN member states may be able to reduce sub-regional suspicions resulting from colonial legacies and overlapping maritime claims, actual success in the implementation of various programs would not materialise without overcoming the problems of economic priority and environmental awareness. Since the priority of many of the sub-regional states is economic development, ASEAN has been very dependent on extra-regional assistance to fund its marine and coastal environmental projects. Limited assistance also means that the number of projects initiated will also be limited. In this regard, there should be a greater commitment from the wealthier ASEAN states of Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand to provide a more significant contribution to ensure growing success in the integrated and sustainable management of marine areas and coastal zones within the sub-region.

Among important initiatives that need to be enhanced is the on-going ASEAN Environmental Education Action Plan funded by the Hanns Siedel Foundation.^[47] Since external assistance is always limited in extent, it is the responsibility of ASEAN member countries to invest in the protection of their own coastal and marine environments. Without sufficient public awareness of the importance of integrated management and sustainable development of their coastal and marine areas, the present efforts taken by ASEAN can only be paper exercises. This is so, since people without environmental awareness will always maximise their income at the expense of the environment, whilst the politicians will accommodate the people’s short-term interests to retain their popularity. It is envisaged that one of the most effective means to enhance cooperation in the integrated management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas in the sub-region is through the auspices of ASEAN. The initial efforts that could lead towards greater cooperation have already been evident since the early 1990s. Nevertheless, success is still far away unless the available efforts are greatly improved. Being parties and signatories^[48] to the LOSC, it is envisaged that the prospect of greater cooperation amongst the ASEAN states is quite bright, since as state parties to the LOSC, they are:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ake-uru, Chalermpon, 1987, ‘Thailand and the Law of the Sea’, Park, Choon-ho & Park, Jae Kyu (eds), The Law of the Sea: Problems from the East Asian Perspective, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Antolik, Michael, 1990, ASEAN and the Diplomacy of Accomodation, An East Gate Book, New York.

ASEAN, ‘Environment’, 18 Oct 2000, http://www.asean. or.id/function/ov_env.htm.

ASEAN, ‘ASEAN Cooperation Plan on Transboundary Pollution’, 20 Oct 2000, http://www.asean.or.id/ function/env/plan.htm.

ASEAN, ‘Strategic Plan of Action on the Environment 1994-1998’, 20 Oct 2000, http://www.asean.or.id/ function/paenul.htm.

ASEAN, ‘ASEAN Cooperation Plan on Transboundary Pollution’, 20 Oct 2000, http://www.asean.or.id/ function/env/plan.htm.

ASEAN, ‘Science and Technology’, 23 Oct 2000, http:// www.asean.or.id/function/ov_st.htm.

ASEAN, ‘Key Indicators (Cambodia)’, 25 Oct 2000, http://www.us-asean.org/Cambodia/investmentclimate/ sld006.htm.

BERNAMA, ‘Malaysia Will Go Ahead With Joint Petroleum Project’, 23 Oct 2000, http://www.bernama.com/bernama/archives/2000_10_23/general/ge3210_28.htm.

Charney, J.I. & Alexander, L.M. (eds), 1993, International Maritime Boundaries, vol. 1, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Part V.

Charney, J.I. & Alexander, L.M. (eds), 1993, International Maritime Boundaries, vol 2, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Part VI.

Chiu, Hungdah and Park, Choon-ho, 1987, ‘Legal Status of the Paracel and Spratly Islands’, in Park, Choon-ho & Park, Jae Kyu (eds), The Law of the Sea: Problems from the East Asian Perspective, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Chong, Ving Ching, 1999, ‘Mangroves and Fisheries Connectivity’ in The MIMA Bulletin, vol. 7, Nov 2/99, MIMA, Kuala Lumpur.

Dahuri, Rokhmin, 1995, ‘Indonesia’, Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo.

Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, ‘Status – UNCLOS and the Agreement on Part XI’, 16 Oct 2000, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/los94st.htm.

Dutton, Ian & Hotta Kenji, 1995, ‘Introduction’, Hotta, K. & Dutton, I., Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo.

Gregory Woodsworth & Pum Vichet, Nguyen Chu Hoi and Suraphol Sudara in Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo.

Hamzah, B.A. & Wong, Jenny, 1997, ‘Current Issues of Marine and Coastal Affairs in Malaysia’ in The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 12, no. 2, Kluwer Law International, London & Cambridge (USA).

Hildreth, R.G & Gale, M.K, 1995, ‘Institutional and Legal Arrangements for Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region’ in Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo.

IMO, 1997, ‘Fighting Pollution in the East Asian Seas’ in IMO News, no. 4, 1997, IMO, London.

IOC-WESTPAC & SEA START RC, International Cooperative Study of the Gulf of Thailand, 24 Nov 2000, http://www.start.or.th/got.

Kenchington, R., 1995, ‘Future Prospects for Coastal Zone Management’ in Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo.

Khine, Thinzar, ‘Coastal Zone Management: Common Concern’, 29 June 1998, http://kudos.traveldesk.com/s/ Coastal_Hotel_Group/3.html.

Mak, J.N., 1996, ‘A View From South East Asia’, in Tsamenyi, M., Bateman, S. & Delaney, J. (eds), The United Nations Convention on the Law of The Sea: What it Means to Australia and Australia’s Marine Industries, University of Wollongong, Wollongong.

Nguyen, Chu Hoi, 1995, ‘Vietnam’, in Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo.

Park, Choon-ho, 1987, ‘Vietnam, Kampuchea and the Law of the Sea’, Park, Choon-ho & Park, Jae Kyu (eds), The Law of the Sea: Problems from the East Asian Perspective, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Rudiyanto, Arifin, May-June 1999, ‘Marine and Coastal Management in Indonesia: a Planning Approach’ in Maritime Studies, 106, ACMS, Canberra.

Secretariat of the Basel Convention, ‘Status of Ratifications of the Basel Convention (Updated 9 October 2000), 23 Oct 2000, http://www. basel.int/ratif/ratif.html.

Tillman, P., Dec 1994, ‘Strait of Malacca and the Law of the Sea’ in The Australian Law Journal, vol. 68, The Law Book Coy Ltd, Sydney.

United Nations (UN), 1983, The Law of the Sea, Official Text of the UN LOSC with Annexes and Index, UN, New York.

Vietnam Investment Review, ‘10 largest foreign investors in Vietnam’, 11 Sep 2000, http://www.mofa.gov. vn.8080/Web+server/Economy.nsf/.

Woodsworth, Gregory & Vichet, Pum, 1995, ‘Cambodia’, in Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo.

Yahuda, Michael, 1996, The International Politics of the Asia-Pacific, 1945-1995, Routledge, London & New York.

Zwenig, Frances & Bruton, C.F., 2000, Cambodia Investment 2000 – Conference Report, US-ASEAN Business Council & Dataconsult, Washington & Bangkok.

ENDNOTES

[*] Amin Md Arof is a Commander in the Royal Malaysian Navy who recently graduated with a Master of Arts (Maritime Policy) from the University of Wollongong. In January 2001 he will become Squadron Leader of the First Fast Attack Craft (Missile) Squadron based at Lumut, Malaysia.

^[2] This incident has been considered as a significant turning point in Malaysia’s post-independence politic that led to the resignation of the first Prime Minister and the introduction of the Government’s New Economic Policy to eliminate poverty and improve the standard of living of the indigenous people.

^[3] Yahuda, Michael, The International Politics of the Asia-Pacific, 1945-1995, Routledge, London & New York, 1996, p. 13.

^[5] Park, Choon-ho, ‘Vietnam, Kampuchea and the Law of the Sea’, in Park, Choon-ho & Park, Jae Kyu (eds), The Law of the Sea: Problems from the East Asian Perspective, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1987, p. 447.

^[6] Although Vietnam’s jurisdiction over the Paracel Islands can be traced back to historical development prior to Western colonisation, French action (and inaction) with respect to its sovereignty over the Paracel Islands in its capacity as the protecting power of Vietnam was reported to be inconsistent. For further elaboration, see Chiu, Hungdah and Park, Choon-ho, ‘Legal Status of the Paracel and Spratly Islands’, in Park, Choon-ho & Park, Jae Kyu (eds), The Law of the Sea: Problems from the East Asian Perspective, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1987, pp. 456-481.

^[7] Ake-uru, Chalermpon, ‘Thailand and the Law of the Sea’, in Park, Choon-ho & Park, Jae Kyu (eds), The Law of the Sea: Problems from the East Asian Perspective, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1987, p. 415. Apart from this minor problem, maritime boundaries in the Andaman Sea are much better defined compared to those in the South China Sea and the Gulf of Thailand. There are nine agreements recorded in this area involving India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand. See Charney, J.I. & Alexander, L.M. (eds), International Maritime Boundaries, vol. 2, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Part VI, 1993.

^[8] The Philippines is also claiming the eastern part of the Spratly Islands on historical grounds based on discovery by its citizen, Thomas Cloma in 1956.

^[9] Available records show that there is no maritime boundary delimitation agreement in the Gulf of Thailand. See Charney, J.I. & Alexander, L.M. (eds), International Maritime Boundaries, vol. 1, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Part V, 1993.

^[10] Woodsworth, Gregory & Vichet, Pum, ‘Cambodia’, in Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, Japan International Marine Science and Technology Federation (JIMSTEF), Tokyo, 1995, p. 227.

^[11] Chong, Ving Ching, ‘Mangroves and Fisheries Connectivity’, MIMA Bulletin, vol. 7, Nov 2/99, MIMA, Kuala Lumpur, 1999, p. 23.

^[12] Tillman, P., ‘Strait of Malacca and the Law of the Sea’, The Australian Law Journal, vol. 68, The Law Book Coy Ltd, Sydney, Dec 1994, p. 891.

^[13] This project is a joint response by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) based on a request by the states affected. See IMO, ‘Fighting Pollution in the East Asian Seas’, IMO News, no. 4, IMO, London, 1997, pp. 10-11.

^[14] BERNAMA, ‘Malaysia Will Go Ahead With Joint Petroleum Project’, 23 Oct 2000, www.bernama.com/ bernama/archives/2000_10_23/general/ge3210_28.htm.

^[15] ASEAN, ‘Key Indicators (Cambodia)’, 25 Oct 2000, www.us-asean.org/Cambodia/investmentclimate/ sld006.htm.

^[18] Dahuri, Rokhmin, ‘Indonesia’, in Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo, 1995, p. 284.

^[19] For further information, see Gregory Woodsworth & Pum Vichet, Nguyen Chu Hoi and Suraphol Sudara in Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo, 1995, pp. 209-242.

^[20] Hamzah, B.A. & Wong, Jenny, ‘Current Issues of Marine and Coastal Affairs in Malaysia’, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 12, no. 2, Kluwer Law International, London & Cambridge (USA), 1997, pp. 223-243.

^[21] Rudiyanto, Arifin, ‘Marine and Coastal Management in Indonesia: a Planning Approach’, Maritime Studies, 106, ACMS, Canberra, May-June 1999, p. 1.

^[23] Nguyen, Chu Hoi, ‘Vietnam’, in Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo, 1995, p. 222.

^[24] ASEAN, ‘ASEAN Cooperation Plan on Transboundary Pollution’, 20 Oct 2000, www.asean.or.id/function/env/ plan.htm.

^[25] This strategy will be implemented by improving regional marine and coastal environmental coordination, and developing a framework for the integrated management of regional coastal zone. See ASEAN, ‘Strategic Plan of Action on the Environment 1994-1998’, 20 Oct 2000, www.asean.or.id/function/ paenul.htm.

^[26] ASEAN, ‘ASEAN Cooperation Plan on Transboundary Pollution’, 20 Oct 2000, www.asean.or.id/function/ env/plan.htm.

^[27] Secretariat of the Basel Convention, ‘Status of Ratifications of the Basel Convention’ (Updated 9 October 2000), 23 Oct 2000, www.basel.int/ratif/ratif. html.

^[29] Such as a requirement to provide adequate facilities for the reception of residues and oily mixtures at oil loading terminals, repair ports, etc. for parties to MARPOL Annex I.

^[30] Khine, Thinzar, ‘Coastal Zone Management: Common Concern’, 29 June 1998, www.kudos.traveldesk.com/s/ Coastal_Hotel_Group/3.html.

^[32] Kenchington, R., ‘Future Prospects for Coastal Zone Management’, in Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo, 1995, p. 388.

^[34] Hildreth, R.G & Gale, M.K., ‘Institutional and Legal Arrangements for Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region’, in Hotta, Kenji & Dutton, Ian (eds), Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Approaches, JIMSTEF, Tokyo, 1995, p. 24.

^[35] This project is a joint response by IMO, UNDP and GEF similar to the Risk Assessment and Management Project in the Malacca Strait discussed earlier.

^[36] This project focuses on the development of safe standards for the marine environment.

^[37] For more information, please see ASEAN, ‘Science and Technology’, 23 Oct 2000, www.asean.or.id/function/ ov_st.htm.

^[38] For more information, see ASEAN, ‘Environment’, 18 Oct 2000, www.asean.or.id/function/ov_env.htm.

^[40] For further information on this program, see IOC-WESTPAC & SEA START RC, International Cooperative Study of the Gulf of Thailand, 24 Nov 2000, www.start.or.th/got.

^[41] Malaysia was reported to be the largest investing nation in Cambodia with investment in oil, banking, brewing, construction, build-operate-transfer, hotels, garments, TV, timber, freight operations and casinos. See Zwenig, Frances & Bruton, C.F., Cambodia Investment 2000 – Conference Report, US-ASEAN Business Council & Dataconsult, Washington & Bangkok, 2000, p. 32.

^[42] Until 18 April 2000, Singapore was reported to be the largest foreign investor in Vietnam with registered capital investment amounting to US$6,765.8 million. Vietnam Investment Review, ‘10 largest foreign investors in Vietnam, 11 Sep 2000, www.mofa.gov.vn.8080/Web+server/Economy.nsf/.

^[43] In this context, China and Taiwan should be considered as one political entity.

^[44] According to J.N. Mak, Beijing will only rely on goodwill and joint development initiatives provided China’s sovereignty is not compromised. See Mak, J.N., ‘A View From South East Asia’, in Tsamenyi, M., Bateman, S. & Delaney, J. (eds), The United Nations Convention on the Law of The Sea: What it Means to Australia and Australia’s Marine Industries, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, 1996, p. 209.

^[45] Indonesia and Malaysia, as well as Malaysia and Singapore, for instance, have agreed to refer their island disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

^[46] This is the author’s interpretation of the practice of avoiding discussion of sensitive issues between ASEAN member countries by way of postponement of discussion or silence. For example, see Antolik, Michael, ASEAN and the Diplomacy of Accommodation, An East Gate Book, New York, 1990, p. 23.

^[47] For more information on this project, see ASEAN, ‘Environment’, 18 Oct 2000, www.asean.or.id/ function/ov_en.htm.

^[48] Cambodia and Thailand are signatories to the LOSC. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, ‘Status – UNCLOS and the Agreement on Part XI’, 16 Oct 2000, www.un.org/Depts/los/los94st.htm.

^[49] United Nations (UN), 1983, The Law of the Sea, Official Text of the UN LOSC with Annexes and Index, UN, New York.

Maritime Studies