Mr Feynman makes some very good points about the serious Timor Sea maritime boundary issues dispute and brings a fresh approach to the debate. He highlights-
1. The need for taking the Indonesian position into account in any discussion on the matter;
2. The adverse consequences for Australia in not putting up and arguing rational explanations for the government’s position on East Timor’s maritime boundary claims – rather than remaining silent and apparently sullen.
It is painful for me as an Australian who has long supported the Timorese cause, to see my country’s reputation going down the [Timor Sea] plug hole for lack of any real contest with the claims and assertions of the East Timor government and its many very vocal supporters on this issue. The result is a public relations disaster for the Australian government among its own people, the Timorese people and with international opinion.
Many thanks to Mr Feynman and for his constructive opinions on this vexed issue which, if it continues may have a significant impact on our foreign relations, not just with East Timor but with others in the region. The article contains a message for our new Prime Minister: use your impressive powers of persuasion to turn this public relations and diplomatic disaster around!

Interesting article. Sharp and instructive.

Some claim that it is a risk for Australia and Timor-Leate to negotiate maritime boundaries, but there is not much that is unknown in terms of the law of the sea and subsequent case law. The 3 step methodology equidistant ( aka median line) approach is law. The median line was written into the Conventiin on the Continental Shelf 1958 as smaller more vulnerable states complained that larger states were using to their advantage the Truman Declaration of 1945, a political one for the U.S. on the continental shelf. The Conventions said where coasts were opposite or adjacent the median line will apply....etc...same in UNCLOS with the equidistant approach interpreted as median line...etc... Indonesia asserted the median line in the 1971-72 negotiations with Australia and ended up compromising on a boundary halfway between their claim and Australia's, later on saying they were taken to the cleaners. Portugal likewise as the colonial occupier claimed the same. Indonesia has not sought to revisit this and general law does not support a registration. Portugal asked to wait as they should have been in the negotiations due to the laterals, but Australia and Indonesia proceeded. Article 3 of the agreement recognises they were the missing party, and the points in which they outlined the laterals are directional not fixed. Australia's natural prolongation singular continental shelf claim in this case has long receded in law, ever alone in geography, and it is time to finish this boundary with Timor-Leste. Timor-Leste should not be held ransom to Australia's past actions and cannot be. As to the point that Indonesia may get a larger slice, well the weight of legal opinion does not advise this. Australia's better position would have been to say ok we can negotiate this with Timor-Leste and if we cannot agree we can have the judicial u pore help us. Even though Australia withdrew from the jurisdiction to settle such disputes on maritime boundaries in 2002, they can still agree to submit for this dispute.

I assume it is understood that the areas claimed by East Timor as being closer to East Timor than to Australia are also closer to Indonesia than to East Timor and sit in the Indonesian water column.