Open Access
Subscription Access
Bangladesh-Myanmar Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Bay of Bengal: An Analysis on the Development of International Law
The judgment delivered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in the dispute concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh-Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal has a historic significance. The Bay of Bengal is an important area for many significant reasons for both the parties. To explore and for the exploitation of living and non-living resources, this judgment has played a vital role. The unique contribution of the judgment is that, the extension of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) from the baseline, and pronouncement of the grey area. This article mainly focuses on the contribution of the case in international law which covers: background of the dispute; straight baseline; continental shelf beyond 200 nm; the role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nm; and the grey area. Before the conclusion. It also focuses on the theory of natural prolongation and the dissenting opinion given by the judge of the Tribunal.
User
Font Size
Information
- Tullio Treves, ‘‘Coastal States’ rights in the maritime areas under UNCLOS’, vol. 12, Brazilian Journal of International Law p. 40, 2015, p. 41.
- R. R. Churchill & A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3rd edition, Manchester University Press, 1999, p. 181.
- Ibid.
- Julia Lisztwan, ‘Stability of Maritime Boundary Agreements’, vol. 37, Yale Journal of International Law, 2012, p. 153.
- Robert D. Hodgso 69, Geographical Review, 1979, p. 423.
- John E. Noyes, ‘The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’, vol. 32, Cornell International Law Journal, 1998, p. 32.
- The Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Case No. 16 of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), Judgment, 2012 (Hereinafter the Judgment) available at https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/case-no-16/ accessed on 27 March 2016.
- The Tribunal is a universal, independent and specialized court. It was created by the LOS Convention, signed in Montego Bay on 10 December 1982 and entered into force on 16 November 1994. This court started its work on 1 October 1996. Similar to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Tribunal was established as a permanent court that serves for the international community as a whole. However, unlike the ICJ, the Tribunal has a more limited jurisdiction as it is a specialized court.
- Bjarni Mar Magnusson, ‘Current Legal Developments: International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’ Judgment in the Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar (14 March 2012)’, vol. 27, International Journal of Maritime and Coastal Law, 2012, p. 623.
- Ibid.
- Samuel J. Zeidman, ‘Sittin’ on the Dhaka the Bay: The Dispute Between Bangladesh and Myanmar and its Implications for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’, vol. 50, Columbia Journal of Transitional La, 2012, p. 442.
- Ibid.
- David P. Riesenberg, ‘Introductory Note to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar)’, vol. 51, International Legal Materials, 2012, p. 840.
- See Judgment (n 7), para 463.
- Robin Churchill, ‘The Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Continuity and Novelty in the Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation’, vol. 1, Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative law p. 137, 2012, p. 138.
- Riesenberg (n 13), p. 840.
- The Judgment was delivered with commendable speed, in two years and three months after referral. The case was entered in the list of cases as Case No. 16 on 14 December, 2009.
- Both Bangladesh-Myanmar were trying to establish the legal boundary agreement since 1974. In 1974 they agreed on territorial sea boundary of 12 nm so is called ‘1974 Agreed Minutes and later in 2008 Agreed Minutes’.
- Judgment (n 7), paras 33-34. Moreover, Bangladesh is situated to the north and northeast of the Bay of Bengal. Its land territory borders India and Myanmar and covers an area of approximately 147,000 square kilometers. And, Myanmar is situated to the east of the Bay of Bengal. Its land territory borders Bangladesh, India, china, Laos and Thailand and covers an area of approximately 678,000 square kilometers.
- Myanmar ratified the Convention on 21 May 1996 and Bangladesh ratified on 27 July 2001.
- Zeidman (n 11), p. 445.
- M. Shah Alam & Abdullah Al Faruque, ‘The Problem of Delimitation of Bangladesh’s Maritime Boundaries with India and Myanmar: Prospects for a Solution’, vol. 25, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law p. 405, 2010, p. 407.
- Zeidman (n 11), p. 446.
- Ibid.
- Alam & Faruque (n 22), p. 408.
- Ibid, p. 450.
- Luther Rangreji, ‘Bangladesh-Myanmar Maritime Boundary Delimitation Dispute’, vol. 16, Journal of International Affairs, 2012, pp.33-37.
- Riesenberg (n 13), p. 847.
- Rangreji (n 27), p. 37.
- Victor Prescott & Clive Schofield, The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World, 2nd edition, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 139.
- Churchill & Lowe (n 2), p. 35.
- Zeidman (n 11), p. 455.
- Natalie Klein, Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1st edition, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 269 27 Luther Rangreji, ‘Bangladesh-Myanmar Maritime Boundary Delimitation Dispute’, vol. 16, Journal of International Affairs, 2012, pp.33-37.
- Alam & Faruque (n 22), p. 411.
- M. Habibur Rahman, ‘Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries: A Survey of Problems in the Bangladesh Case’, vol. 24, Asian Survey, 1984, p. 302.
- Michael A. Becker & Ernesto J. Sanchez, ‘International Law of the Sea’, vol. 44, International Lawyer 2010, p. 519.
- Alam & Faruque (n 22), p. 412.
- Muhammad Nazmul Hoque, ‘The Legal and Scientific Assessment of Bangladesh’s Baseline in the Context of Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’, United Nations- The Nippon Foundation fellow 2005-2006, 2006, available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/hoque_0506_bangladesh.pdf accessed on 12 April 2016.
- Zeidman (n 11), p. 457.
- The first Law of the Sea Conference was held in 1956 (UNCLOS I) at Geneva. Which resulted with four conventions in 1958. These are: Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone; Convention on the Continental Shelf; Convention on the High Seas; and Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas.
- Malcolm D Evans, Relevant Circumstances and Maritime Delimitation, 1st edition, Oxford University press, 1989, p. 44.
- The Truman Proclamation stated that: ‘The Government of United States regards the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United States, subject to its jurisdiction and control’. In its preamble, the proclamation justified this claim on the basis of contiguity and reasonableness. See Churchill & Lowe (n 2), pp. 143-144.
- Donald R Rothwell & Tim Stephens, The International Law of the Sea, re-printed in 2011, Hart Publishing 2010, p. 99.
- See United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1833 UNTS 397, adopted on 10 December 1982, art 76 (8). (Hereinafter UNCLOS) 45. Andrew Serdy, ‘Interpretation of UNCLOS Article 76 and the Negative Recommendation of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on Ascension Island: Is the United Kingdom Stuck with it?’, vol. 2, Cambridge Journal on International and Comparative Law, 2013, p.591.
- See Judgment (n 7), para 363.
- Thomas Cottier, Equitable Principles for Maritime Boundary Delimitation, 1st edition, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 88.
- See Judgment (n 7), paras 343-347.
- Rangreji (n 27), p. 47.
- Magnusson (n 9), p. 628.
- Ibid, p. 629.
- Robin Churchill, ‘Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2012’, vol. 28, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law p. 563, 2012, p. 578.
- See Judgment (n 7), para 366.
- In the meantime, The Bay of Bengal maritime Arbitration between Bangladesh and India was pending before the Permanent Court of Arbitration” (PCA) at The Hague, The Netherlands. That Award was given on 7 July 2014. The PCA to delimit the territorial sea, EEZ, and the continental shelf between the parties within 200 nm and beyond 200 nm. For further, see the Award, available at http://archive.pca-cpa.org/showpage5a3b.html?pag_id=1376 accessed on 28 March 2016.
- Magnusson (n 9), p. 630.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Surya P. Subedi, ‘Problems and Prospects for the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Dealing with Submissions by Coastal States in Relation to the Ocean Territory Beyond 200 Nautical Miles’, vol. 26, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2011, p. 430.
- Serdy (n 45), p. 596.
- Barbara Kwiatkowska, ‘Submissions to the UN CLCS in Cases of Disputed and Undisputed Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Unresolved Land or Maritime Disputes of Developing States’, Utrecht Universit Repository, 2011, available at https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/235430 accessed on 14 April 2016.
- Subedi (n 58), p. 413.
- See UNCLOS (n 44), Annex II, art 4.
- Becker & Sanchez (n 36), p. 519.
- Ibid, p. 525.
- Ibid, p. 519.
- Zeidman (n 11), p. 468.
- Ibid, p. 519.
- Ted L. McDorman, ‘The Continental Shelf Regime in the Law of the Sea Convention: A Reflection on the First Thirty Years’, vol. 27, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,2012 , p. 747.
- Churchill (n 15), p. 184.
- Ibid.
- Zeidman (n 10), p. 470.
- Subedi (n 57), p. 420.
- Clive Schofield & Anastasia Telesetsky, ‘Grey Clouds or Clearer Skies Ahead? Implications of the Bay of Bengal Case’, vol. 3, Law of the Report, 2012, p. 1.
- Churchill (n 52), p. 586.
- Ibid.
- D. H. Anderson, ‘Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar)’, vol. 106, American journal of International Law, 2012, p. 822.
- Churchill (n 52), p. 586.
- Ibid.
- Abdullah Al Faruque, ‘Judgment in Maritime Boundary Dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar: Significance and Implications under International Law’, vol. 18, Asian Yearbook of International Law, 2012, p. 79.
- Riddhi Shah, ‘Bangladesh-Myanmar ITLOS Verdict: Precedence for India?’, vol. 37, Strategic Analysis, 2012, p. 178.
- L. D. M. Nelson, ‘The Roles of Equity in the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries’, vol. 84, American Journal of International Law, 1990, p. 846.
- Wolfgang Friedmann, ‘The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases- A Critique’, vol. 64, American Journal of International Law, 1970, p. 236.
- Evans (n 41), pp. 47-48.
- Churchill (n 52), p. 614.
- Magnusson (n 9), p. 631.
- Ibid.
- Judgment (n 7), para 438.
- Magnusson (n 9), p. 631.
- Faruque (n 79), p. 78.
- Evans (n 41), p. 51.
- Anthony Amos Lucky, ‘Dissenting Opinion in the Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar)’, the Judgement of ITLOS on 14 March 2012, available at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_16/C16.diss_op.Lucky.rev.E.pdf, accessed on 16 April 2016.
- Ibid, p. 29.
- Ibid, p. 29.
- Ibid, p. 31.
- Ibid, p. 31.
- Ibid, p. 63.
- Ibid, p. 45.
- Ibid, pp. 44-45.
- Ibid, pp. 49-50.
- Ibid, p. 51.
- Ibid, p. 54.
- Ibid, p. 64.
- Ibid, p. 58.
- Ibid, p. 64.
- Alan E. Boyle, ‘Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction’, vol. 46, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1997, p. 37.
- Jillaine Seymour, ‘The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: A Great Mistake’, vol. 13, Indiana Journal of Global Studies, 2006, p. 1.
- Alam & Faruque (n 22), p. 421.
Abstract Views: 209
PDF Views: 101