the disputes in relation to the Preah Vihear Temple case and the South China Sea arbitration. This book recognizes that overlapping entitlements are indeed “existential” disputes, and examines how ASEAN can serve as a forum for multilateral conflict resolution, including multitrack diplomacy (p. 204) and joint development (p. 244). In so doing, it sets the scene for a serious inquiry into the development of a dispute settlement mechanism that will be suitable for Southeast Asia. In addition to the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea led by ASEAN, multiparty conciliation either under the 2010 Protocol to the ASEAN Charter on Dispute Settlement Mechanisms for intra-ASEAN boundaries, or the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS] Annex V for disputes involving non-ASEAN third-party states, could be useful for two reasons: its non-binding result and its flexibility in allowing multistate participation. Multiparty conciliation offers a “regional process” that could revive failed joint development efforts (p. 244). Timor Leste expeditiously reached agreement with Australia on boundary delimitation and resource-sharing within just seven months of conciliation. The flexibility of procedures could bring into play interests of other non-state stakeholders such as regional organizations, environmental organizations, and oil companies (p. 261). Conciliation of environmental protection disputes in areas of unresolved territorial or maritime boundaries could build trust between disputing Southeast Asian states, which could form the foundations of a “constitutional order” (p. 239) for increased co-operation in provisional arrangements such as joint development or consensus to enter into negotiations. As the Chairman of the Timor Leste / Australia conciliation commission advised: “Conciliation is a marathon, not a sprint.”

中文翻译：

---

海上恐怖主义与司法机构在国际法律秩序中的作用 莱顿：布里尔·尼霍夫（Brill Nijhoff），2016年。xx+ 202页。精装本：143美元。

有关Preah Vihear Temple案和南海仲裁的争议。本书认识到，重叠的权利确实是“存在的”争端，并探讨了东盟如何成为解决多边冲突的论坛，包括多轨外交（第204页）和共同发展（第244页）。这样，它就为认真研究适用于东南亚的争端解决机制的发展奠定了基础。除了由东盟牵头的2002年《关于南海各方行为的宣言》之外，根据《东盟关于东盟内部边界争端解决机制的宪章》的2010年议定书或《联合国国际法公约》进行的多党和解。关于涉及非东盟第三方国家的争端的《海法公约》附件五，之所以有用，有两个原因：其非约束性结果和允许多州参与的灵活性。多方和解提供了一个“区域过程”，可以使失败的联合开发努力复活（第244页）。东帝汶在调解后仅七个月内就边界划定和资源共享迅速与澳大利亚达成了协议。程序的灵活性可能会引起其他非国家利益相关者的利益，例如区域组织，环境组织和石油公司（第261页）。在尚未解决的领土或海洋边界地区调解环境保护纠纷可以在有争议的东南亚国家之间建立信任，这可以构成“宪法秩序”的基础（p。239）加强在临时安排中的合作，例如共同发展或达成协商共识。正如东帝汶/澳大利亚和解委员会主席所建议的那样：“和解是一场马拉松，而不是短跑。”