{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0335795836131632, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0241773002014775, 'mean_word_length': 5.7727272727272725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Disputes Emanating from the Infringement of Articles 74(3) and 83(3) and Optional Exception under Article 298(1)(a)(i) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Maritime delimitation, which ensures the jurisdiction exertion and effective use of maritime spaces of coastal States, never involves minimal efforts. In the transitional period pending the final delimitation agreement of overlapping areas in the exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out obligations for State Parties to take provisional measures under Articles 74(3) and 83(3). The violation of these obligations may lead to disputes between States that will potentially be brought before the compulsory dispute settlement procedure under UNCLOS. Whether disputes arising from the violation of Articles 74(3) and 83(3) fall into the scope of application of optional exception under Article 298(1)(a)(i) remained debatable. Accordingly, this research paper is conducted to analyse the separation and independence between the interim regime and maritime delimitation to support the opinion that disputes emanating from the infringement of Articles 74(3) and 83(3) are not disputes ‘relating to sea boundary delimitation’ under Article 298(1)(a)(i). This paper uses the doctrinal approach on the provisions in international treaties or conventions, international customary law, and decisions and awards of international courts and tribunals.