In April 2016, Timor-Leste initiated compulsory conciliation proceedings against Australia under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This is the first time a Conciliation Commission has been constituted for the purpose of aiding the settlement of a maritime boundary dispute under UNCLOS. This brief comment considers possible arguments about the competence of the Commission and the admissibility of the Timor-Leste's claim.

On 11 April 2016, Timor-Leste initiated a compulsory non-binding conciliation proceeding against Australia under Annex V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on its maritime boundary dispute with Australia in the Timor Sea. On 6 March 2018, the parties signed a settlement treaty on the basis of the proposal of the Conciliation Commission. Two months later, the Conciliation Commission issued its report, marking the conclusion of the first ever conciliation proceeding under Annex V of UNCLOS.This book provides detailed analyses of the proceedings and a step-by-step account of the conciliation process, as well as its wider implications for dispute settlement under UNCLOS and beyond. The various chapters explore a wide range of issues, including an overview of conciliation as a means of dispute settlement and the conciliation procedure in UNCLOS, as well as the origins and historical background of the maritime boundary dispute between Timor-Leste and Australia. The book also provides a comprehensive examination of each step of the conciliation proceedings, including the role of the Conciliation Commission, the Conciliation Commission's Decision on Competence, the issue of joint development, and the Maritime Boundaries Treaty, which Timor-Leste and Australia concluded as the legal outcome of the conciliation proceedings. Critically, the book offers insightful perspectives from Australia and Timor-Leste on the conciliation process. The book is an important contribution to the research and analysis of the Timor Sea conciliation. As one of the first books on the case, it will raise awareness and bring more familiarity with conciliation as a viable and effective dispute settlement process, thereby encouraging states to consider conciliation as a means to settle their disputes.

I have been charged by the organisers of this seminar with discussing treaty law and its implications for the possible resumption of maritime boundary negotiations between Australia and Timor-Leste before 2057. Perhaps this is the most contentious mandate of today because it involves arguments about changing the status quo. My paper will unfold in two parts. I will first provide a necessary introduction and context in order to understand the arguments about the revival of the maritime boundary negotiations between Australia and Timor-Leste through a failure of the Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea (which I will call CMATS). I will then turn to the Arbitration under the Timor Sea Treaty, commenced by Timor-Leste against Australia in 2013, and which is currently pending before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. The Arbitration apparently disputes Australia's exclusive right to tax the pipeline to Darwin from the Bayu Undan gas field in the Joint Petroleum Development Area under Article 8(b) of the Treaty. Based on information that is publicly available (because the Arbitration remains a closed, secret proceeding), I will review the arguments, pro and con, under the law of treaties that might be run to allow Timor-Leste to escape CMATS before 2057 and revive Australia's obligation to negotiate the boundary dispute in good faith with East Timor. These arguments relate to whether the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of CMATS renders CMATS invalid or otherwise void at international law.

What happens after a judgment is delivered by a tribunal constituted under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea? In this ground-breaking book, all the decisions issued by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or Annex VII arbitral tribunals are examined to determine what results transpired following the judgment or order. The authors consider what compliance means and whether it has been achieved in UNCLOS dispute settlement. We suggest what other outcomes have sometimes eventuated from UNCLOS dispute settlement and propose steps that may be taken to enhance judgment compliance.